Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-10-30
R0120/2024-3
Contested design: 008668859-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Nichtigkeitsantragsteller trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Herbert Koernervia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Wandlitzstr. 28, 10318 Berlin, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
NightDreamer GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mühlenstraße 8a, 14167 Berlin, Deutschland
Represented by
Hans-Peter Gottfried
Prior art cited (5)
Medizinische Reise- und Ruhekissen mit externer Kissenhülle, variabel für Hals- und Lendenwirbelsäulenbereich
EP 2454971
biokynbernetische Schlafkissen mit beweglicher Nackenrolle und individuell befüllbaren Nacken- und Kopfteil
DE 20 2017 000 157.8 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2017-01-05
ortho-kybernetisches individuell anpassbares Schlafkissen mit beweglicher Nackenrolle und Diagnose/Therapie Kanal
DE 20 2021 000 859.4 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt · disclosed 2021-03-23
Flyer des Reise- und Ruhekissens (Stoff und Luft), als Reisekissenvariante seit 2013 vertrieben
Kurzinfo und Gebrauchsanleitung zur Schlafkissenvariante 2015
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the contested pillow design reflected his patented, utility-model-protected, and earlier marketed cushion concepts and invoking Article 25(1)(c) to (g), plus broader technical and copyright points.
- ›The holder asked for dismissal, denying any subsisting copyright or other earlier rights, disputing unpleaded Article 25(1)(b) claims, and maintaining no pleaded ground justified invalidity.
- ›The Board held Articles 25(1)(d), (e), and (g) were never substantiated, Article 25(1)(f) failed for lack of identified national copyright rules and scope, and Article 25(1)(c) failed without a court judgment establishing entitlement.
- ›The Board also found Article 25(1)(b) had not been clearly raised in the invalidity application and could not be introduced or expanded on appeal, so the appeal was dismissed in full.
- ›As the unsuccessful party, the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs in both instances.
Deciding panel
- ChairS. Stürmann
- RapporteurC. Bartos
- MemberE. Fink
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frFrench | human translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0122/2024-3 | 2024-10-30 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(f), Art 25(1)(c), Art 60(1) | — | 9 |
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R0029/2022-3 | 2025-04-16 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R1330/2022-3 | 2025-03-19 | Decision partially annulled | Art 25(1)(f) | — | 4 |
| R2491/2020-3 | 2024-11-26 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R2493/2020-3 | 2024-11-26 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |
| R0102/2023-3 | 2024-11-08 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 60(1) | — | 4 |