Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-04-24
R1486/2022-3
Contested design: 007539754-0006
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s costs in both instances.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
RECA Group Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Zielonogórska 31, 71-084 Szczecin, Poland
Holder · RCD owner
Energy5 Sp. z o.o.via PDF extraction
Poland (PL)
ul. Ziejkowa 5, 09-500 Gostynin, Poland
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
solar panel profile shown in YouTube video screenshot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJAp3F92DTg · YouTube video portal · disclosed 2014-07-18
Zimmermann solar mounting profile from archived website and 2016 catalog
Katalog für Freiland-Solar-Montagegestelle · Wayback Machine / Zimmermann catalog · disclosed 2016-10-29
solar panel profile shown in YouTube video screenshot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG_7PuCIUwo · YouTube video portal · disclosed 2019-05-02
S-shaped solar panel profile shown in an unlisted YouTube video screenshot
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=_yLnrMFumB8&feature=emb_title · YouTube video portal · disclosed 2019-05-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the prior internet evidence was too unclear or insufficiently public, and that any similarities with the earlier solar profile were driven by technical mounting requirements.
- ›The invalidity applicant maintained that the unlisted YouTube video showing D4 was publicly accessible enough under Article 7 and that the shared S-shaped profile created the same overall impression.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D4, rejected the Article 7(2) grace-period defence for lack of proof linking the holder’s own disclosure to D4, and found the profile shape dominated the overall impression.
- ›The holder’s appeal failed and the first-instance invalidation remained in place.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1015/2024-3 | 2024-11-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |