Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-19
R2046/2025-3
Contested design: 005236536-0001
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for a fresh assessment limited to the prior design properly identified in the invalidity application, and each party bears its own appeal costs.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Annuls the contested decision. 2. Remits the case to the Invalidity Division for further examination. 3. Orders each party to bear its own costs in the appeal proceedings.
CostsEach party bears its own costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Woods & Go Design S.Lvia PDF extraction
Spain (ES)
Beniarjó, Spain
Represented by
Celeste Reig Albiñana
Holder · RCD owner
Smeg S.p.A.via PDF extraction
Italy (IT)
Guastalla (RE), Italy
Represented by
Prior art cited (1)
SMEG FAB 28 single-door refrigerator (retro style)
SMEG catalogue 12/2011, Exhibit 1 (page 4 / pp. 9 and 15 per Invalidity Division) · SMEG catalogue, December 2011
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division violated the right to be heard by relying ex officio on a different catalogue image (a side-by-side two-door refrigerator interior view) not invoked by the applicant, and that disclosure of interior views was not established.
- ›Applicant (respondent) argued the catalogue constitutes reliable disclosure evidence, all evidence was accessible to both parties, and the exterior features dominated the overall impression.
- ›The Board found the Invalidity Division erred procedurally: it used a catalogue image (page 7 showing CVB20+FAB28) not expressly identified by the applicant as a prior design, thereby going beyond the scope of the invalidity application; the Board did not rule definitively on disclosure.
- ›The appeal was upheld: the contested decision was annulled and remitted for reassessment limited to the prior design properly identified (the closed FAB28 image on page 4 of the catalogue); each party bears its own appeal costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurS. Rizzo
- MemberC. Negro
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| 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 ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2112/2025-3 | 2026-06-29 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 9 |
| R0823/2024-3 | 2025-06-18 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1), Art 60(2) | — | 8 |
| R0422/2023-3 | 2024-03-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 8 |
| R0353/2022-3 | 2023-03-10 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2), Art 60(1) | — | 8 |
| R2047/2025-3 | 2026-06-19 | Remitted (further prosecution) | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0577/2025-3 | 2026-01-21 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 60(1) | — | 6 |
| R0828/2024-3 | 2025-12-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |