Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-04-24
R1488/2022-3
Contested design: 007539754-0003
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
U-shaped Zimmermann solar profile shown in catalog and archived website
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
solar panel profile shown in 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 Zimmermann catalog evidence was unclear, late and insufficiently dated, and that small differences in cut-outs and edge directions were enough in a constrained technical field.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the archived Zimmermann catalog and related screenshots adequately proved disclosure of the earlier U-shaped profile before filing.
- ›The Board accepted disclosure of D2 and held that the shared U-shaped structure, smooth surface and keyhole cut-out concept dominated the overall impression despite differences in the number and placement of cut-outs.
- ›The holder’s appeal was dismissed and the invalidity applicant kept its first-instance victory.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1489/2022-3 | 2023-04-24 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0055/2022-3 | 2022-10-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R2427/2023-3 | 2024-07-31 | Decision partially annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R2443/2020-3 | 2023-01-17 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0092/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0093/2022-3 | 2022-10-25 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R1085/2019-3 | 2020-10-22 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |