Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-10-30
R0122/2024-3
Contested design: 008668859-0001
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 (4)
Medizinische Reise- und Ruhekissen mit externer Kissenhülle, variabel für Hals- und Lendenwirbelsäulenbereich
EP 2454971
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
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
Reise- und Ruhekissen sowie Schlafkissenvariante, nach dem Vortrag des Antragstellers seit 2013 bzw. 2015 vertrieben
Flyer und Gebrauchsanleitung
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that the contested pillow design derived from his earlier patented and utility-model-protected pillow concept and had already been marketed since 2013 and 2015.
- ›He invoked entitlement, copyright, and technical-function objections and asked for the first-instance rejection to be set aside.
- ›The holder disputed any copyright or earlier right, argued that Article 25(1)(b) had not been properly pleaded, and requested dismissal of the appeal.
- ›The Board found Articles 25(1)(d), (e), and (g) unsubstantiated, Article 25(1)(f) unsupported by the necessary national copyright provisions, and Article 25(1)(c) unsupported by a court judgment on entitlement.
- ›It also held that Article 25(1)(b) could not be expanded on appeal, so the appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against the applicant.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0120/2024-3 | 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 |