DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002778647-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-09-02

R0420/2023-3

Contested design: 002778647-0001

CDRAppellant: holdermedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Appeal upheld (reversal)

The contested decision is annulled and the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division to continue the invalidity proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

1. Anular la resolución impugnada. 2. Remitir el asunto a la División de Anulación para continuar con el procedimiento de nulidad.

CostsEach party bears its own costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Kinya Solutions, Lda.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Eco-Parque Empresarial de Estarreja Rua de Veiros, n.º 11 3860-529 Estarreja Portugal

Holder · RCD owner

Polímeros Gestión Industrial, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Autovía A-4, Km 412 14013 Córdoba España

Represented by

Herrero & Asociados

Prior art cited (4)

PatentAnexo E1

Spanish validation of the European patent for a modular polycarbonate roofing panel corresponding to the contested design

ES 2 848 121 T3 / EP 3 290 613 / ES 201 530 498 U · Spanish utility model priority / European patent validation · disclosed 2015-04-30

Web disclosureAnexo E2

Website extracts showing the holder's panels

https://polimerosgi.com/producto/polime · holder website · disclosed 2021-10-18

PatentAnexo A1

Patent application containing graphical representations of a panel design

DE 10 208 687 A1 · German patent publication · disclosed 2003-09-25

PatentAnexo A2

Spanish translation of a European patent application containing graphical representations of a panel design

EP 98 940 413.2 · European patent publication · disclosed 2000-06-28

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 8(1)Article 8(2)Article 8(3)Article 5Article 6

Argument summary

  • The holder appealed, arguing the design was not dictated exclusively by technical function, formed part of a modular roofing system, remained visible in normal use, and was novel over the cited disclosures.
  • The invalidity applicant maintained that the contested design was purely functional, not protected by the modular-system exception, insufficiently visible as a component, and lacked novelty and individual character.
  • The Board found the panel's connection features fell within Article 8(2) and that the holder had shown the design served multiple connections of interchangeable products within a modular system under Article 8(3).
  • Because the Invalidity Division had not examined novelty and individual character for the modular-system exception, the Board annulled the decision, remitted the case, and ordered each party to bear its own appeal costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairS. Stürmann
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberC. Negro
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0204/2024-32025-06-04Decision confirmedArt 8(1), Art 8(2)6
R0030/2018-32024-09-09Decision confirmedArt 8(1), Art 8(2)6
R0029/2018-32024-09-09Decision confirmedArt 8(1), Art 8(2)6
R1524/2021-32022-05-30Decision confirmedArt 8(1), Art 8(2)6
R2163/2022-32024-03-05Decision annulledArt 8(1), Art 8(2)5
R1072/2020-32023-09-06Decision annulledArt 8(1)5
R1070/2020-32023-09-06Decision annulledArt 8(1)5
R2414/2018-32023-03-01Decision annulledArt 8(1)5