Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2023-04-24
R1489/2022-3
Contested design: 007539754-0002
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's costs and fees in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
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
Represented by
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
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJAp3F92DTg · YouTube · disclosed 2014-07-18
Zimmermann solar panel profile from the 2016 catalogue archived on the Wayback Machine
Katalog fur Freiland-Solar-Montagegestelle · pv-stahlbau.de / Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2016-10-29
solar panel profile shown in YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG_7PuCIUwo · YouTube · disclosed 2019-05-02
solar panel profile shown in YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=_yLnrMFumB8&feature=emb_title · YouTube · disclosed 2019-05-02
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The invalidity applicant argued that earlier internet disclosures, especially the Zimmermann 2016 catalogue archived on the Wayback Machine, showed a solar-panel profile producing the same overall impression as the contested RCD.
- ›The design holder disputed identification and disclosure of D1 to D4, argued that the images were blurred and incomplete, and maintained that differences in proportions, edges and technically constrained features preserved individual character.
- ›The Board held that D2 was sufficiently identified and disclosed before the filing date and that both designs shared the same U-shaped profile with keyhole-like cut-outs, while the asserted differences had little impact on the informed user's overall impression.
- ›The Board found the contested RCD lacked individual character in light of D2, did not examine novelty or the other cited prior designs further, and dismissed the appeal.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal Romero
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 |
| R1488/2022-3 | 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 |