DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002733287-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2020-07-06

000105880

Contested design: 002733287-0002

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear 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 0027332870002 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

Maciej Stachlewski Przedsiębiorstwo Wielobranżowe "BUD-MASZ"via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

3 Maja 37, 95-083 Lutomiersk, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

BUDMAT Bogdan Więcek

Poland (PL)

ul. Otolińska 25, 09-407 Płock, Poland

Represented by

KONDRAT & PARTNERS

Prior art cited (4)

PatentD1

ornamental design for roof covering products

US 416 338 · United States patent registration certificate · disclosed 1999-11-09

PatentD2

ornamental design for roof covering products

US 374 095 · United States patent registration certificate · disclosed 1996-09-24

National design⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design registration invoked against the contested RCD

CN02361255X · China

National design⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design registration invoked against the contested RCD

CN96302647X · China

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on two Chinese design registrations, two US design patent registrations, and examples of earlier RCDs.
  • The holder argued the US designs would not have become known in the EU, disputed the applicant's characterisation of the informed user and design features, and maintained that all features of the contested RCD had design significance.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the two US patent registrations, but rejected the Chinese registrations as unproven because the publication details were untranslated and the later DesignView extracts were belated.
  • The Division found limited designer freedom for roof coverings but held that differences in the wave-like separating elements, longitudinal extrusions, module count, and curved surfaces gave the contested RCD a different overall impression and preserved individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected, with costs awarded against the applicant.

Deciding panel

  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

25.01

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000128596

vs Griptel AB

2025-07-17Art 25(1)(b)257
000124436

vs Ziel Home Furnishing Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-11-19Art 25(1)(b)257
000121100

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000121138

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000121099

vs TABB Interior Systems B.V.

2024-01-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000120379

vs Ergosafe Aktiebolag

2023-10-26Art 25(1)(b)257
000120958

vs Yimei Zhu

2023-07-27Art 25(1)(b)257
000119859

vs BoZarc

2023-06-02Art 25(1)(b)257