DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002684043-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2021-07-16

000109364

Contested design: 002684043-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0026840430001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Anne Germannvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Kölner Landstr. 117, 40591 Düsseldorf, Germany

Holder · RCD owner

SunPower Corporationvia PDF extraction

United States (US)

77 Río Robles, San Jose, California 95134, United States of America

Represented by

Boult Wade, S.L

Prior art cited (5)

Patent

international patent application on shingled solar-cell supercells

WO 2015/183827 A2

Registered RCD

solar panel

RCD 002032581-0005 · EUIPO Office bulletin · disclosed 2012-05-07

Registered RCD

solar panel

RCD 000034350-0001

Registered RCD

solar panel

RCD 001386056-0001

Registered RCD

solar panel with four ladder-like structures

RCD 001955030-002

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested solar-panel design lacked novelty and individual character over earlier RCDs and that its features were solely dictated by technical function.
  • The holder replied that the reflective surface and other visual choices were aesthetic design features, the earlier designs created different impressions, and the applicant had not proved sole technical functionality.
  • The Division rejected the Article 8(1) and novelty attacks, accepting disclosure of RCD 002032581-0005 but finding the reflective surface prevented identity under Article 5.
  • Comparing overall impressions, the Division found the contested design did not differ from RCD 002032581-0005 in a way that mattered, so the invalidity application was upheld.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberRebecca SANTANA DAVIES
  • MemberRasa BARAKAUSKIENĖ

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

23.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132264

vs SHANDONG QIYUE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000131884

vs Zhaoqing Mikasi Home Hardware Co., LTD

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000130601

vs Zhou Canbin

2026-01-15REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000127275

vs GRZEGORZ PIĄTEK PHU "TOP SERVIS"

2025-09-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128177

vs DECATHLON

2025-08-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000126775

vs Ecomsoul Pro SRL

2025-07-11REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
0001267152025-07-10REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238
000128196

vs Rafał Sowa

2025-07-08REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)238