Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2019-11-26
R2146/2018-3
Contested design: 003021633-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed and the design holder is ordered to reimburse the invalidity applicant's costs in the appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to reimburse the invalidity applicant's costs in the appeal proceedings.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
SMEG S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Via Leonardo Da Vinci 4, 42016 Guastalla (RE), Italy
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Husky Refrigerator Mfg Co., Ltdvia PDF extraction
China (CN)
No.3 Factory, Land No.9, Shakeng Industrial Zone, Wusha, Daliang Street Shunde District, Foshan, Guangdong, People's Republic of China
Represented by
Prior art cited (8)
refrigerator, filed 8 April 1997
Italian design registration No 196 / No 1997 MI 000 196-0008 · Italian design registry / DesignView database · disclosed 1997-04-08
refrigerator (second view from same Italian registration)
Italian design registration No 1997 MI 000 196-0008 · DesignView database · disclosed 1997-04-08
refrigerator, published 5 November 2014 in Community Designs Bulletin
RCD No 2 070 490-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin / EUIPO designs database · disclosed 2014-11-05
refrigerator, published 5 November 2014 in Community Designs Bulletin
RCD No 2 070 490-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin / EUIPO designs database · disclosed 2014-11-05
screenshots of SMEG refrigerators from YouTube
http://www.youtube.com · YouTube
SMEG website showing refrigerators, via Internet Archive
http://www.smeg.it (via https://archive.org/web/) · Internet Archive / web.archive.org
printouts of web pages and a blog showing SMEG refrigerators
various websites and blog
extracts from SMEG catalogues depicting SMEG refrigerators
SMEG catalogues
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder (Husky) appealed the Invalidity Division's finding that the contested refrigerator RCD lacked individual character relative to earlier RCD D3 (SMEG retro refrigerator), arguing the designer's freedom was limited, the market was crowded, and visible differences in hinges, handle attachment and door length generated a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity applicant (SMEG) requested dismissal, arguing no evidence of market saturation had been timely submitted, the market-saturation claim was raised for the first time on appeal, and the shared vintage-style proportions and convex door with rounded edges dominated the overall impression.
- ›The Board disregarded the late-filed saturation evidence under Article 63(2) CDR; even if considered, it was insufficient. The Board found the contested RCD replicated the three primary appearance features of D3 — a slightly convex door, rounded edges, and a prominent horizontal handle — producing the same 'déjà vu' impression of a 1950s-style refrigerator.
- ›The appeal is dismissed; the RCD remains invalid for lack of individual character relative to earlier design D3.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurC. Rusconi
- MemberG. Humphreys
- RegistrarH. Dijkema
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |