DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003021633-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-09-06

000011136

Contested design: 003021633-0001

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay EUR 750 in costs.

Show verbatim operative text

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 003021633-0001 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

Smeg S.p.A

Italy (IT)

Via Leonardo da Vinci 4, 42016 Guastalla (RE), Italy

Represented by

Studio Torta S.p.A.

Holder · RCD owner

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

Prior art cited (8)

National designD1

refrigerator

Italian design application No 000196 · Italian registration certificate

National designD2

refrigerator

Italian design registration No 1997MI000196-0008 · DesignView

Registered RCDD3

refrigerator

RCD No 002070490-0001 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-11-05

Registered RCDD4

refrigerator

RCD No 002070490-0002 · Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2014-11-05

Web disclosure

'SMEG' refrigerators video screenshots

http://www.youtube.com · YouTube

Web disclosure

'SMEG' refrigerators website capture

http://www.smeg.it · Internet Archive

Web disclosure

'SMEG' refrigerators web pages and blog

web pages and blog

Catalog

'SMEG' catalogues depicting refrigerators

SMEG catalogues

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)

Argument summary

  • Applicant argued the contested refrigerator lacked novelty and individual character over earlier Smeg refrigerator designs and related disclosures, relying on Italian and EU design registrations plus web and catalogue evidence.
  • Holder filed no observations in reply.
  • The Division accepted D3 as disclosed prior art, rejected the novelty ground because the differences were not immaterial, but found the designs created the same overall impression given broad design freedom.
  • The application was upheld because the contested RCD lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b) CDR; the design was declared invalid and costs were awarded against the holder.

Deciding panel

  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
  • MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
  • MemberGaile SAKALAITE

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 invalidated156
000132185

vs Baofeng LIU

2026-05-26REUD invalidated156
000132064

vs Han Sheng

2026-05-06REUD invalidated156
000131827

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-28REUD invalidated156
000131826

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-27REUD invalidated156
000131787

vs linbo GAO

2026-04-21REUD invalidated156
000131088

vs ZhiAo Zhou

2026-03-18REUD invalidated156
000129841

vs Suzhou Kingbow Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd

2026-01-26REUD invalidated156