Invalidity · first instance · 2025-07-22
000129242
Contested design: 008668859-0001
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of EU design No 008668859-0001 is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 008668859-0001 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Angelika Würznervia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Berlin, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
NightDreamer GmbH
Germany (DE)
Berlin, Deutschland
Represented by
Hans-Peter Gottfried
Prior art cited (7)
'mySheepi Kissen' flyer showing various pillow designs
RECURAS UG
blog posts about mySheepi pillows referenced in an email
https://www.schmerz-im-nacken.de/massnahmen-gegen-nackenschmerzen/die-bestenseitenschlaeferkissen/ ; https://www.schmerz-im-nacken.de/ratgeber-kissen/das-beste-kopfkissen-fuer-kinder-test/ ; https://miks-magazin.com/mittendrin/mysheepi-test/ · schmerz-im-nacken.de; miks-magazin.com
mySheepi pillows allegedly shown at HEIMTEXTIL 2018 and in related online posts
HEIMTEXTIL Frankfurt/Main / Facebook · disclosed 2018-01-10
mySheepi advertising videos with partial pillow images
crew-united.com links · crew-united.com
'mySheepi fragt nach' campaign video reference
YouTube link · YouTube · disclosed 2019-11-01
SCHLAFONAUT interview and podcast showing different pillows
SCHLAFONAUT
private licence agreement showing earlier pillow designs
Lizenzvertrag mit der RECURAS UG vom 14.02.2017 · licence agreement with RECURAS UG · disclosed 2017-02-14
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant alleged the contested pillow design lacked novelty and individual character because earlier mySheepi pillow designs had been disclosed since 2017 in flyers, blogs, a trade fair, videos, emails and a licence agreement.
- ›The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
- ›The Division held the evidence did not objectively prove public disclosure under Article 7 and, in any event, the applicant had not clearly identified which specific earlier designs the challenge relied on.
- ›Because the invoked Article 25(1)(b) grounds were not substantiated, the invalidity application was rejected and costs were awarded against the applicant.
Deciding panel
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000128656 vs Washtower IP B.V. | 2026-05-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000128557 vs Washtower IP B.V. | 2026-05-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000129371 vs joboo GmbH | 2026-05-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000128978 vs Franco Ferri S.R.L. | 2026-04-13 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000131627 vs Shuifa XIE | 2026-03-31 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000130974 vs Højer Møbler A/S | 2026-03-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000128937 vs Liyou Industrial Co., Ltd | 2026-02-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |
| 000128579 vs Washtower IP B.V. | 2026-02-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 06 | 7 |