DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002778647-0001

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-04-07

R0947/2025-3

Contested design: 002778647-0001

EUDRAppellant: applicant

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed, and the invalidity applicant is ordered to pay the holder's costs in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Desestimar el recurso. Ordenar a la solicitante de nulidad a pagar los gastos sufragados por la titular en los procedimientos de nulidad y de recurso.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Kinya Solutions, LDA.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Estarreja, Portugal

Holder · RCD owner

Polimeros Gestion Industrial, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Córdoba, España

Represented by

Herrero & Asociados

Prior art cited (2)

PatentAnexo A1

patent application showing a modular roofing panel profile

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

PatentAnexo A2

European patent application disclosed through the submitted Spanish translation, showing a panel profile

EP 98940413.2 / ES 2187053 T3 · European patent application publication · disclosed 2000-06-28

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(a)Article 3(a)Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 4(2)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 8(1)Article 8(3)

Argument summary

  • The invalidity applicant appealed, arguing the design was not a protectable design, was part of a complex product, was dictated by technical function, and lacked novelty and individual character over A1 and A2.
  • The holder replied that the contested panel profile remained protectable, the modular-systems exception in Article 8(3) applied, and the earlier designs did not create the same overall impression.
  • The Board considered only Annexes A1 and A2 as properly pleaded prior designs, accepted their disclosure, and held the contested profile's protected connection features fell within the modular-systems exception.
  • The Board found the contested design new and individually distinctive compared with A1 and A2, dismissed the appeal, and ordered the invalidity applicant to pay the holder's costs.

Deciding panel

  • ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
  • RapporteurS. Rizzo
  • MemberH. Salmi
  • RegistrarK. Zajfert

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 4(1), Art 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2)11
R1654/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11
R1699/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11
R1693/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11
R1696/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11
R1694/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11
R1698/2021-32022-08-25Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11
R1653/2021-32022-03-29Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b), Art 8(1), Art 4(2), Art 52(2), Art 63(2)11