DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002778647-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-03-31

000116688

Contested design: 002778647-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

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

Show verbatim operative text(es)

Se desestima la solicitud de declaración de nulidad del dibujo o modelo comunitario registrado n.º 002778647-0001. Se condena al solicitante a que sufrague las costas de la titular, fijadas en 400 EUR.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Kinya Solutions, Lda.via PDF extraction

Portugal (PT)

Eco-Parque Empresarial de Estarreja, Rua de Veiros, N.º 11, 3860-529 Estarreja, Portugal

Holder · RCD owner

Polimeros Gestión Industrial, S.L.via PDF extraction

Spain (ES)

Autovía A-4 Km 412, 14013 Córdoba, España

Represented by

Herrero & Asociados

Prior art cited (2)

PatentD1

panel

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

PatentD2

panel

EP 98940413.2 A2 · European patent application publication · disclosed 2000-06-28

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested panel was not a protectable design, its visible features were dictated by technical function or hidden in normal use, and it lacked novelty and individual character over earlier patent disclosures.
  • The holder replied that the panel belonged to a modular roofing system under Article 8(3), remained visible in normal use, and retained design freedom and distinguishing features over the cited prior designs.
  • The Division found the registered profile clearly identified a design, excluded the internal cellular structure from protection as purely technical, but accepted that the interconnection features fell within the modular-systems exception.
  • It held the panel remained visible in use, treated A1 and A2 as prior disclosures, but found the protected coupling features created a different overall impression, so the design was new and had individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberCarmen SÁNCHEZ PALOMARES
  • MemberJessica N. LEWIS

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
esSpanishoriginalDownload 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), Art 25(1)(a)259
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
000127897

vs Saunasell OÜ

2025-11-07Art 25(1)(b)257
000127935

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