Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-29
R1575/2025-3
Contested design: 002827675-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal. 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Schäfer Brand Distribution GmbHvia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Daufenbach, Germany
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Travel Blue Limitedvia PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
Watford, United Kingdom
Prior art cited (2)
Chinese design patent for a neck pillow
CN 302548095 S · Chinese design patent register · disclosed 2013-08-28
Amazon.de offer for the Cabeau Evolution Pillow
Amazon Standard Identification Number B 004 ZID XK2 · Amazon.de · disclosed 2012-11-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the contested pillow design lacked novelty and individual character over D1 and D24 and that the Invalidity Division had assessed the comparison too analytically.
- ›The design holder argued that the overall comparison in the contested decision was correct and that the structural, contour, pocket, zipper and fastening differences produced a different overall impression.
- ›The Board held that substantive validity was governed by the CDR, accepted disclosure of D1 and D24, and found that despite the shared U-shape the differences in side shape, back section, structure and additional features were significant.
- ›The Board confirmed that the contested design has individual character and novelty over D1 and D24, dismissed the appeal and ordered the invalidity applicant to bear costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0093/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2273/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R2274/2025-3 | 2026-05-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1395/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1394/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1318/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1396/2025-3 | 2026-04-28 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1826/2025-3 | 2026-04-22 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |