DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 006145025-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-01-12

R0050/2025-3

Contested design: 006145025-0001

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the design holder must bear the costs and fees incurred by the invalidity applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text

Dismisses the appeal; 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

Marcin Szymczukvia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

Bohaterów Września 12, 17100 Bielsk Podlaski, Poland

Represented by

CHMURA & WSPÓLNICY

Holder · RCD owner

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

Poland (PL)

ul. Targowa 1, 26-300 Opoczno, Poland

Prior art cited (1)

Registered RCD

sheet roofing tiles

European Union design registration certificate No 4 557 874-0001 · European Union Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2018-01-29

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued the Invalidity Division ignored market evidence, misjudged the informed user and designer freedom, and should have found a different overall impression.
  • The invalidity applicant replied that only the registered representations matter and that the extra column does not change the overall impression of the roof-covering design.
  • The Board held the prior design was validly disclosed outside the grace period and that market-fit evidence was irrelevant because the comparison had to rest on the registered representations.
  • The Board found the extra column and colour difference insufficient to alter the overall impression, so the contested design lacked individual character and the appeal failed.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurC. Bartos
  • MemberS. Rizzo
  • RegistrarE. Wagner

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
frFrenchhuman translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine 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
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
R1395/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1394/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1318/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1396/2025-32026-04-28Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5