On 22 April 2020, Intellectual Property Adjudicator Dr. Roya Israeli rejected an application by Galil Profiles Ltd. to cancel registered Design No. 62217, owned by Raanana Aluminum Products Ltd., concerning an aluminum profile used in wall-cladding systems. The challenge relied on an earlier registered profile, Design No. 61011, owned by Galil.
The decision turned on the visual appearance of the profiles as separate products offered to professional purchasers. Differences in the form and position of protrusions shown in the cross-sectional drawings were sufficient to preserve the later design’s novelty under the former Patents and Designs Ordinance. Galil was ordered to pay NIS 20,000 in costs.
The Competing Registered Designs
Raanana Aluminum applied to register its aluminum-profile design on 14 June 2018. The design was entered on the register on 23 May 2019 as Design No. 62217. Galil filed a cancellation application the following day, relying on its earlier Design No. 61011, registered on 28 July 2017.
Galil contended that the profiles had the same general appearance and that their use in completed wall-cladding systems produced a similar and misleading visual result. It presented photographs of installed cladding surfaces and cross-sectional illustrations of the competing profiles.
Raanana Aluminum identified differences in the cross-sections and explained that the market contained numerous profiles sharing basic structural characteristics. Disputes concerning the parties’ commercial relations, the origin of a method of assembly and possible manufacturing-cost advantages were secondary to the question of registrability raised in the cancellation proceeding.
The Relevant Product Was the Aluminum Profile, Not the Completed Wall
The Adjudicator applied the visual “eye test” developed under the former designs legislation, particularly the Israeli Supreme Court’s judgment in Mipromal Jerusalem Industries Ltd. v. Klil Industries Ltd., Civil Appeal 7125/98.
The analysis began by identifying the registered article and its relevant purchaser. Here the registered designs covered the individual aluminum profiles, not a completed wall-cladding installation. The comparison therefore concerned the appearance of the profiles as sold, including their end cross-sections.
The products were purchased and used by professional installers and contractors. These purchasers could observe and evaluate the profile’s cross-sectional shape, even where the final building occupant saw only the completed cladding. This professional purchasing context framed the visual comparison.
The Cross-Sectional Details That Preserved Novelty
Several views of the profiles contained relatively little distinctive visual information, so the decision concentrated on their cross-sections. Design No. 62217 contained two additional protrusions at its base. Side protrusions were placed near the middle of the profile, whereas the corresponding features in Galil’s earlier design were lower. The protrusions at the ends also differed in shape and orientation.
Those differences were visible in a direct comparison of the profiles’ cross-sections. In a product field constrained by technical requirements, relatively small variations may have considerable visual significance. The Adjudicator held that the differences established novelty for the challenged design.
The scope of protection follows the visual contribution for which the design qualifies. Where two similar products are differentiated by specific structural contours, those features are central to assessing the registration and its later enforcement.
Why the Appearance of the Installed Cladding Did Not Decide the Case
Galil asked that the appearance of the completed wall-cladding system also be considered. The Adjudicator rejected that approach in the cancellation proceeding. The registered subject matter was the profile, and the validity comparison had to be made between the registered articles as depicted.
Similarity in the final cladding installation therefore did not displace the differences apparent in the products’ cross-sections. The allegation that purchasers might be misled was also separate from the legal inquiry into novelty. Passing off and deceptive marketing require their own factual and legal assessment.
Cancellation Under the Former Patents and Designs Ordinance
The registration application was filed in June 2018, before the 2017 Designs Law entered into force. The dispute was therefore governed by the former Patents and Designs Ordinance. Section 36 empowered the Registrar to consider cancellation based on prior publication, and the applicant had to establish that the earlier design defeated the novelty of the later registration.
Arguments about the weight, efficiency, cost or technical advantages of the profiles did not determine that question. The requested cancellation concerned the appearance of the registered article compared with the identified earlier design.
The application was dismissed, and Galil Profiles was ordered to pay NIS 20,000 in costs.
The Decision’s Place in Israeli Design Practice
The ruling can be read alongside later examination decisions under the Designs Law concerning the representation of functional aluminum profiles. For example, a separate decision involving Klil Industries, Design Application No. 62495, addressed exclusion of concealed functional interior features under the newer statutory framework.
It also concerns a different dispute from Galil Profiles Ltd. v. Belco LED Ltd., Krayot Magistrates’ Court, Civil Case 45211-01-24 (18 October 2026). In that later case Galil enforced Design No. 61939 against another company and obtained a finding of infringement and passing off. The two proceedings involved different registered rights and different parties.
The practical significance for foreign manufacturers is the importance of the precise article registered and the complete set of technical product views. Where industrial components are sold to installers, end profiles and cross-sectional contours may carry the relevant visual differences even if completed installations look alike.
Decision reference: Galil Profiles Ltd. v. Raanana Aluminum Products Ltd., application to cancel registered Design No. 62217, Israel Patent Office, Adjudicator Dr. Roya Israeli, 22 April 2020.
For related guidance see Registered Design Protection for Building Components in Israel, Cancellation of a Registered Design in Israel, Galil Profiles v. Belco LED and Design Litigation in Israel.
