Window profiles, aluminum extrusions, façade panels, doors and roof tiles are selected partly for technical performance, but their visible appearance can distinguish one manufacturer’s products from those of competitors. In Israel, the appearance of a building component may be protected by a registered design where the statutory requirements are satisfied. The legal challenge is to separate protectable visual choices from shapes and dimensions required by engineering or exact interconnection.
Drori Stav IP advises manufacturers of windows, doors, aluminum systems, cladding and architectural finishes, industrial designers and their overseas attorneys on registered design applications in Israel. The filing strategy should consider both how the component appears in catalogues or during installation and which portions are hidden or necessarily shaped for a technical purpose.
Can Window Profiles, Doors, Panels and Tiles Be Registered as Designs?
Under Israel’s Designs Law, 5777-2017, the appearance of a product or part of a product can qualify if it is new and possesses individual character. Protected visual features may include outlines, shape, color, ornamentation and texture. A profile’s exposed contour, a door’s decorative facing or the relief pattern of a cladding panel may therefore be capable of registration.
An industrial component may contain protectable visual choices alongside a window seal, lock, drainage mechanism or structural connector whose function calls for separate patent analysis.
The visual representations, rather than the product family’s marketing name, define the protected appearance.
Window and Aluminum Extrusions: The End Profile Versus the Visible Façade
An aluminum or PVC extrusion may look quite different when its end cross-section is inspected than when installed alongside glazing or a wall. Installers and engineers focus on cavities, seals, tracks and joining features; architects and purchasers may encounter only the visible profile and its proportions.
This raises practical decisions about the claimed portion of a profile, its end view, internal cavities, perspective views and the manner of representing an extrusion sold in multiple lengths. Disclaimers or broken lines can help indicate portions not claimed, but their legal significance depends on the applicable registration rules.
Example 1: US D1,073,988 S1, Window Frame Extrusion
US Design Patent D1,073,988 S1, assigned to Deceuninck North America, depicts a window-frame extrusion using perspective, end and other views. Its description distinguishes broken lines illustrating unclaimed interior features from boundary lines delimiting the claimed part.
For an Israeli application, identify the particular exterior lines and surfaces that carry the distinctive visual appearance, and represent them consistently in the filed views.
Israeli Patent Office decisions of 30 November 2020 illustrate the distinction. In the Klil Industries matter, Design Application No. 62495, registration of an aluminum profile was permitted after concealed, technically dictated interior parts were excluded. In the Sharon Belgezal matters, Applications Nos. 63527–63529, a roller-shutter pattern providing light openings could qualify where its particular appearance was not dictated exclusively by the function and novelty and individual character were established.
Under the former Patents and Designs Ordinance, a cancellation request involving registered Design No. 62217 was rejected in Galil Profiles v. Raanana Aluminum Products (22 April 2020). Differences in the location and shape of profile projections were significant in a technically constrained field. The case was decided under the former Ordinance.
Architectural Cladding: Register the Individual Panel or the Repeated Pattern?
Cladding can create a distinctive overall façade through the repetition and arrangement of individual elements. Protection for a panel’s appearance and protection for a particular façade arrangement call for separate consideration in the filing strategy.
A manufacturer should determine whether the distinctive appearance lies in the panel’s relief, folded surface, grooves or edge profile, or primarily in an installation arrangement. That choice affects both the filing representations and future infringement analysis if a competitor sells similar individual units in a different arrangement.
Example 2: US D1,104,302 S1, Architectural Panel
US Design Patent D1,104,302 S1 presents an architectural panel in more than one depiction and uses break lines and boundary conventions to identify excluded and contextual matter. The use of such symbols illustrates the need to define the particular claimed panel and explain how its visual appearance is represented.
The filed representations and applicable drawing rules define the scope across lengths and configurations.
Roof Tiles, Wall Tiles and Decorative Blocks: Shape and Texture
A roofing tile necessarily sheds water and covers a building. Yet its contours, surface texture, ornamental edge and visible color arrangement can involve design choices. Whether these features provide novelty and individual character requires comparison with earlier public designs, not just a statement that the product looks different.
In Termodan v. Block America, Design No. 65547 (3 September 2024), the Israeli Registrar rejected a request to cancel registration of a ring-shaped block creating a brick-clad column appearance. The relevant design was the specific building component, including the placement of grooves and ornamentation; the architectural plan did not disclose the particular appearance of that component.
For families of tiles produced in different colors, the application should identify whether protection is sought for form, texture, a particular contrast or a combined visual presentation. The choice between one filing and several depends on the claimed appearance and the visual significance of the variants.
Example 3: US D908,927 S1, Roofing Tile
US Design Patent D908,927 S1 includes two presentations of a roofing tile and enlarged views of specific details. Its description addresses dotted shading used to depict a color or contrast variation in one presentation. The example demonstrates that shading conventions can be central to defining the visual features claimed.
Israel’s Functional and Must-Fit Exclusions: Section 10
Section 10 of the Designs Law excludes appearances dictated solely by technical function and specified visual characteristics whose exact shape and dimensions are necessary to connect a product to another product or integrate it with a system.
This is particularly relevant to tracks, connecting projections, sockets, fittings and other building-system interfaces. A projection that must have a specified geometry for a connector to fit cannot automatically be monopolized through design law. A different part of the same extrusion, however, may contain freely chosen visual elements.
The EU Court of Justice in DOCERAM, Case C-395/16, discussed technical-function exclusions and the need to consider relevant circumstances rather than relying solely on the presence of alternative designs. The Israeli analysis follows Section 10 and local registration practice.
Is a Design Ineligible If Its Features Are Hidden After Installation?
Some components are visible to professional installers or buyers before installation but hidden from the eventual building occupant. EU design law applies particular rules concerning visibility of parts incorporated into complex products during normal use. The European 2024 designs legislation contains detailed rules of its own.
In Israel, the nature of the component and the filed representations are assessed under the Designs Law. For filing purposes, a manufacturer should identify the appearance it wants to protect and provide clear views even if some features are normally examined by professional purchasers rather than household consumers.
Whole Doors, Frames and Handles Versus Partial Designs
A door assembly may combine a panel, frame, handle, hinges and decorative surfaces; a window may include a sash, rails and seals. The commercially distinctive element could be one component rather than the whole assembly.
Where the same handle is offered across several doors, protecting the handle separately may be more useful than claiming a complete door. Where the overall visual relationship among parts matters, claiming the complete unit may be appropriate. It is not safe to assume that a commercial product family automatically qualifies as a statutory “set of articles.”
Drawings for Long, Modular or Variable-Length Building Parts
Extrusions and cladding strips often have a constant cross-section but are sold in different lengths. End views, perspective views and any legally permitted break-line treatment should convey the same claimed appearance consistently.
Use the drawing conventions accepted in Israel to show continuous strips, recessed surfaces and terminating edges clearly.
Locarno Classification and Prior-Design Searches
Building components do not all fall within one Locarno class. Depending on their nature, architectural elements, construction materials, fittings and decorative products can fall into different classes or subclasses. Classification supports searching and filing but is not itself a decision that the design is registrable.
Searches should combine the relevant WIPO Locarno classification with product terms, manufacturers and visual comparisons. The relevant earlier designs may have been published anywhere in the world.
When Should a Foreign Manufacturer File in Israel?
A building component may be publicly disclosed in an architect’s rendering, tender submission, supplier catalogue or trade show long before first sale. Such a publication may affect novelty. The Israeli Designs Law provides a 12-month grace period for certain proprietor-derived disclosures, but the conditions and rules in foreign target markets may be different.
For international distribution, coordinate Israeli filing with priority applications and any available Hague System designation before publication.
Ownership When Architects, Contractors and Manufacturers Collaborate
Where a component is created with a subcontractor, external designer or architect, the parties should establish who owns the design and who may register, manufacture and license it. Purchase of an engineering service or delivery of CAD drawings does not always settle ownership of every resulting intellectual property right.
A component’s appearance, engineering features and architectural drawings may justify coordinated design, patent and copyright protection.
For filing strategy see Design Registration and Prosecution in Israel; for enforcement see Design Litigation in Israel and Proving Design Infringement in Israel. The official Israel Patent Office filing service provides current administrative information.
