Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-06-19
R2047/2025-3
Contested design: 005236536-0007
Outcome
The contested decision is annulled, the case is remitted to the Invalidity Division for a fresh assessment of individual character taking proper account of the contested EUD's interior views, 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 32 two-door upright refrigerator (retro style)
SMEG catalogue 12/2011, Exhibit 1, page 5 · SMEG catalogue, December 2011
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Holder (appellant) argued the Invalidity Division failed to consider the interior views forming part of the contested EUD's registration, incorrectly treated the interior as secondary, applied an erroneous informed-user definition confined to the exterior, and overstated the degree of designer freedom.
- ›Applicant (respondent) maintained the Invalidity Division's reasoning was correct, only two of seven views show the interior, the exterior dominates the overall impression, and the interior is functional and commonplace.
- ›The Board confirmed disclosure from the SMEG 2011 catalogue (design holder's own catalogue, possessed by applicant) and found designer freedom at least average; however, it held the Invalidity Division erred by treating interior views as practically irrelevant — the contested EUD's registered interior features cannot be neutralised from the overall-impression assessment.
- ›The appeal was upheld: the contested decision was annulled and remitted for reassessment giving proper weight to interior features; 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) | — | 7 |
| R2046/2025-3 | 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 |
| R0828/2024-3 | 2025-12-05 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R1804/2024-3 | 2025-11-19 | Decision annulled | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R0097/2025-3 | 2025-10-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |
| R2322/2024-3 | 2025-05-21 | Decision confirmed | Art 63(2), Art 25(1)(b) | — | 6 |
| R1315/2023-3 | 2024-04-19 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 63(2) | — | 6 |