DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 004665362-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2024-01-12

000117834

Contested design: 004665362-0001

CDR

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 004665362-0001 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

Polstal W.Dudek Spolka z ograniczona odpowiedzialnosciavia PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Kolejowa 45 lok. F129, 01-210 Warszawa, Poland

Holder · RCD owner

Blach - Pol Krzysztofik., Pałyga sp.j.via PDF extraction

Poland (PL)

ul. Targowa 1, 26-300 Opoczno, Poland

Prior art cited (8)

Web disclosure

Article entitled “Our choice of roof covering – Sheet tile of Tysenia” showing a Tysenia roof covering.

http://rodzicewsieci.pl · www.rodzicewsieci.pl · disclosed 2017-09-22

Web disclosureAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot of Google results and webpage advertising the “new” Tysenia metal roof tile.

www.avitodachy.pl · Google search / www.avitodachy.pl · disclosed 2017-07-11

Web disclosureAnnex 2⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot of Google results and webpage advertising the Tysenia metal roof tile.

www.roxal.blachotrapez.eu · Google search / www.roxal.blachotrapez.eu · disclosed 2017-11-01

Web disclosureAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot of Google results and webpage advertising the Tysenia metal roof tile.

eurodachy.com.pl · Google search / eurodachy.com.pl · disclosed 2017-06-30

Web disclosureAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot of Google results and webpage advertising the Tysenia metal roof tile.

www.goplast.net · Google search / www.goplast.net · disclosed 2017-12-18

Web disclosureAnnex 5⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot of Google results and webpage advertising the Tysenia metal roof tile.

www.max-bud.net · Google search / www.max-bud.net · disclosed 2017-06-28

Web disclosureAnnex 6⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshot of Google results and webpage advertising the Tysenia metal roof tile.

www.traffic-blanchy.pl · Google search / www.traffic-blanchy.pl · disclosed 2017-06-29

Web disclosureAnnex 7⚠ rejected as evidence

Screenshots of webpage advertising Pruszynski panel roof tiles.

pruszynsky.com.pl · pruszynsky.com.pl

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on an earlier Tysenia roof-covering design allegedly disclosed online before the filing date.
  • The holder disputed proper disclosure to specialised circles and argued the compared roof-covering designs were neither identical nor produced the same overall impression.
  • The Division accepted the main website screenshot as disclosed and considered some annexes supportive, but found most additional web evidence insufficient or inadmissible to prove disclosure timing.
  • Comparing the fully visible prior panel with the contested design, the Division found clear differences in rows, tile count, dimensions, and proportions, so the contested design remained new and had individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberEnrico D'ERRICO
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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
000130245

vs G.B.S., s.r.o.

2026-01-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000130202

vs SC PAMABA SRL

2025-12-16Art 25(1)(b)257
000127997

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127959

vs Peng Zhang

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)257
000127935

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127897

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127898

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-10-20Art 25(1)(b)257
000124782

vs D.ELLINAS FACTORY PRODUCTS LTD

2025-06-25Art 25(1)(b)257