DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004665362-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2024-12-09

R0538/2024-3

Contested design: 004665362-0001

CDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant must bear the design holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

1 Dismisses the appeal; 2 Orders the invalidity applicant to bear the costs incurred by the design holder in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Polstal W.Dudek Spolka z ograniczona odpowiedzialnosciavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Kolejowa 45 lok. F129, 01-210 Warszawa, Poland

Represented by

Ewelina Pijewska

Holder · RCD owner

BLACH - POL Krzysztofik., Pałyga sp.j.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Targowa 1, 26-300 Opoczno, Poland

Prior art cited (8)

Web disclosure

Blog article 'Our choice of roof covering – Sheet tile of Tysenia' showing a roof covering

http://rodzicewsieci.pl · rodzicewsieci.pl · disclosed 2017-09-22

Web disclosureAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Google search result and webpage screenshot referring to Tysenia roof covering

www.avitodachy.pl · Google search / www.avitodachy.pl · disclosed 2017-07-11

Web disclosureAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Google search result and webpage screenshot referring to Tysenia roof covering

www.roxal.blachotrapez.eu · Google search / www.roxal.blachotrapez.eu · disclosed 2017-11-01

Web disclosureAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Google search result and webpage screenshot referring to Tysenia roof covering

eurodachy.com.pl · Google search / eurodachy.com.pl · disclosed 2017-06-30

Web disclosureAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Google search result and webpage screenshot referring to Tysenia roof covering

www.goplast.net · Google search / www.goplast.net · disclosed 2017-12-18

Web disclosureAnnex 5⚠ rejected as evidence

Google search result and webpage screenshot referring to Tysenia roof covering

www.max-bud.net · Google search / www.max-bud.net · disclosed 2017-06-28

Web disclosureAnnex 6⚠ rejected as evidence

Google search result and webpage screenshot referring to Tysenia roof covering

www.traffic-blanchy.pl · Google search / www.traffic-blanchy.pl · disclosed 2017-06-29

Web disclosureAnnex 7⚠ rejected as evidence

Undated webpage screenshot showing roof coverings

pruszynsky.com.pl · pruszynsky.com.pl

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing that the earlier 'Tysenia' roof covering had been publicly disclosed online before filing and that the contested RCD lacked novelty and individual character; it said the row and tile count was technically dictated.
  • The design holder replied that only one complete prior image was proven disclosed, the extra web evidence was undated or unclear, and the designs differed in rows, proportions and embossing so the RCD remained new and distinctive.
  • The Board agreed that Annexes 1 to 7 did not prove disclosure because the webpage screenshots were undated and could not be reliably linked to the dated Google search results; only the blog article's single-panel image could be used.
  • It found the two-row contested roof covering created a different overall impression from the single-row prior design because of major shape, proportion and embossing differences, rejected the Article 8(1) point, dismissed the appeal and awarded costs against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esSpanishhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
itItalianhuman 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
R0947/2025-32026-04-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)7
R2328/2024-32025-08-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)7
R0789/2024-32025-07-22Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(a)7
R2274/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0093/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R2273/2025-32026-05-18Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1575/2025-32026-04-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5