DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001762337-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-10-16

000010624

Contested design: 001762337-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0017623370001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Bilka Steel SRL

Romania (RO)

17 Henri Coanda Street, City of Brasov, Brasov County, Romania

Holder · RCD owner

Rautaruukki OYJvia PDF extraction

Finland (FI)

Panuntie 11, 00620 Helsinki, Finland

Prior art cited (6)

National designD1⚠ rejected as evidence

roof tile design of Dachpoll exhibited at BUDMA trade fair

Polish design No 16621 · BUDMA trade fair, Poznan, Poland · disclosed 2010-01-19

National designD2⚠ rejected as evidence

roof tile design

Swedish design No 75217 · Swedish Patent Office · disclosed 2002-10-02

PatentD3

partial perspective view of a roof construction

US patent No 4498267 · United States patent publication · disclosed 1985-02-12

CatalogD4

Ludlow Major roof tiles

Marley Eternit catalogue · disclosed 2009-06-01

CatalogD5

Lindum roof tiles

Standtoft catalogue · disclosed 2009-11-01

Web disclosureD6

Verde Industries Core Drill Roof Tile video showing roof tiles

YouTube · disclosed 2009-11-16

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on six earlier roof-tile designs and disclosures.
  • The holder disputed disclosure of D1 and argued that none of the earlier designs was identical to or created the same overall impression as the contested RCD.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D3 to D6, finding D1 and D2 insufficiently proven or inadequately represented under Article 7 CDR.
  • It found no identical prior design and concluded that the contested roof-tile design produced a different overall impression from the closest prior designs.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.02

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000105879

vs Bernhard Hirsch

2020-02-04Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104699

vs DACHPOL Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością

2020-01-30Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104060

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104079

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000104059

vs SUZHOU 3DS ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT CONSTRUCTION CO., Ltd.

2019-12-12Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106281

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106301

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258
000106280

vs Sports Partner

2019-09-27Invalidity application rejectedArt 25(1)(b)258