DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002075317-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-07-26

000010151

Contested design: 002075317-0001

CDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld; the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant’s costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 002075317-0001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Husky Refrigerator Mfg Co., Ltd

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

Garrigues IP, S.L.P.

Holder · RCD owner

Jupiter Industries Limited

United Kingdom (GB)

37 Station Road, Lutterworth, LE17 4AP, United Kingdom

Represented by

HGF Limited

Prior art cited (5)

OtherExhibits 1-4⚠ rejected as evidence

‘Retro Undercounter’ refrigerator

2011 catalogue; Alibaba; Hotelex Fair photograph/invoice

PatentExhibit 5

refrigerator design

US D568 909 S · United States patent publication · disclosed 2008-05-13

National designExhibit 7

refrigerator design

Design No 119049 · French Intellectual Property Office database · disclosed 1976-01-03

Web disclosureExhibit 14

‘SMEG’ design

www.amazon.co.uk · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2010-03-17

Web disclosureExhibit 15

design

www.amazon.co.uk · Amazon.co.uk · disclosed 2012-05-10

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 6(1)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on the 'Retro Undercounter' refrigerator and other earlier refrigerator designs disclosed before 17/07/2012.
  • Holder argued several exhibits were insufficiently dated or not reasonably known in the EU, and said common refrigerator features and technical constraints reduced the significance of similarities.
  • The Division found Exhibits 1 to 4 did not sufficiently prove disclosure, but accepted Exhibit 5's US patent publication as prior disclosure under Article 7.
  • Comparing the contested RCD with the accepted prior refrigerator design, the Division found the same overall rectangular form and rounded corners; differences in finish, hinges, and handle did not create individual character.
  • The application was upheld, the contested RCD was declared invalid, and the holder was ordered to bear the applicant's costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberBirgit FILTENBORG

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

15.07

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000132204

vs Baofeng LIU

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000132185

vs Baofeng LIU

2026-05-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000132064

vs Han Sheng

2026-05-06REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131827

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-28REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131826

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131787

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-21REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000131088

vs ZhiAo Zhou

2026-03-18REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158
000129841

vs Suzhou Kingbow Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd

2026-01-26REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)158