DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002733287-0002

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2021-09-23

R1771/2020-3

Contested design: 002733287-0002

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must 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

Maciej Stachlewski Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe "BUD-MASZ"via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

3 Maja 37, 95-083 Lutomiersk, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

BUDMAT Bogdan Więcekvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Otolińska 25, 09-407 Płock, Poland

Represented by

KONDRAT & PARTNERS

Prior art cited (3)

PatentD1

roof tile / sheet roofing tile

United States patent application No 416 338 · United States patent publication · disclosed 1999-11-09

PatentD2

roofing tile / sheet roofing tile

United States patent application No 374 095 · United States patent publication · disclosed 1996-09-24

National design⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design registrations for roofing tiles

CN02361255X and CN96302647X · Chinese registration certificates / DesignView extracts

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant argued that the contested sheet-roofing-tile design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier US patent drawings D1 and D2 and over two Chinese registrations.
  • The design holder replied that the Chinese registrations had not been properly established, that the US disclosures were too remote from the relevant EU circles, and that the contested profile created a different overall impression in any event.
  • The Board endorsed the first-instance view that the Chinese registrations could not be relied on, accepted D1 and D2 as the relevant prior art, and found visible differences in the cross-section, flat surfaces and separating elements that an informed user would notice despite the technical context.
  • The appeal was dismissed because the contested RCD retained individual character and therefore novelty a fortiori.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberA. Szanyi Felkl
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

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
R0116/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0115/2025-32025-07-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1669/2023-32024-11-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2453/2023-32024-10-30Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0952/2021-32024-09-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2140/2023-32024-08-14Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2585/2023-32024-08-06Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1745/2023-32024-06-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5