DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004592152-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-05-07

R0482/2020-3

Contested design: 004592152-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the invalidity applicant is ordered to bear the design holder’s costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

BUDMAT Bogdan Więcekvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Otolińska 25, 09-407 Płock, Poland

Represented by

Kondrat & Partners

Holder · RCD owner

DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnościąvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Kilińskiego 89, 22-400 Zamość, Poland

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCDD1

sheet roofing tiles

RCD No 2 733 287-0002 · Community Design Bulletin · disclosed 2015-09-23

CatalogD2

roof sheet called “Murano” shown in a dated price list

price list of the invalidity applicant · disclosed 2016-02-02

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5Article 6Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested roof-sheet design lacked novelty and individual character over prior designs D1 and D2, both linked to its “Murano” roofing sheets.
  • The design holder maintained that the contested RCD differed in the decisive separating elements and therefore produced a different overall impression on the informed user.
  • The Board accepted disclosure of D1 and D2 but found the differing shape and positioning of the separating elements sufficient to distinguish the contested RCD from the prior designs.
  • The appeal was dismissed; the contested RCD retained individual character and the invalidity applicant was ordered to bear costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
  • Registrarp.o. R. Vidal

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5