Sara Söderling of the MARQUES Designs Team reports on a recent decision from the EUIPO Board of Appeal (BoA) involving a SMEG refrigerator.

The case concerns invalidity proceedings regarding a registered design for refrigerators, recently decided by the BoA in R 2047/2025-3. The dispute centred on the assessment of overall impression to determine individual character.

The dispute: missing views in the prior art

The design at issue was EU registration 5236536-0007, filed on 16 April 2018 (pictured right).

The prior art originated from a ‘SMEG’ catalogue, showing the ‘FAB 32’ refrigerator displayed below.

The central issue was the impact of the prior art not disclosing corresponding interior views of the contested design.

Absent features still count

The BoA concluded that features in a prior design can only be considered to the extent they are visible in the submitted prior art. Absent features cannot be added by speculation, nor can their absence be overcome by dismissing the corresponding features in the contested design as legally irrelevant by default.

The BoA found that the contested design shared principal exterior characteristics with the prior art: a two-door upright refrigerator with an elongated monolithic body, rounded vertical transitions between front and sides, a retro-inspired silhouette, and two horizontal handles placed centrally on the upper and lower doors (paragraph 47).

The BoA therefore agreed with the Invalidity Division that the products showed strong exterior similarities in their closed state.

However, the BoA found that the Invalidity Division was wrong to treat the internal appearance of the contested design as having only secondary or negligible importance. A similar approach was taken by the Invalidity Division in Case No 000130546, where prior art was represented in a single perspective view and the absence of certain features was held not to be decisive and the shared views were treated as dominating the visual appearance.

Notably, the BoA concluded that the absence of certain features from the prior design is itself a relevant element in the comparison (paragraph 48). This conclusion cannot be avoided by stating that omitted features are of lesser significance because they are functional or because the external appearance will have a greater effect on the informed user. The BoA points out that normal use of the product in the present case involves opening the doors and interacting with the internal storage space, making the internal appearance part of the user’s regular experience. Consequently, these features cannot be dismissed as irrelevant by default.

Differentiated weighting requires justification

The BoA held that this does not mean all features automatically carry equal weight when assessing overall impression. Differentiated weighting is permissible, but requires adequate reasoning, which the Invalidity Division did not provide.

A global assessment must include all features

Taking the internal views properly into account, the BoA found that the Invalidity Division’s decision can no longer be upheld.

The contested design includes a specific visible internal arrangement, and the common exterior alone is insufficient for finding that the informed user would perceive no difference in overall impression.

Key takeaway: justify your reasoning

In summary, the BoA’s decision stresses that omitted features are also features that cannot be disregarded in a comparison of overall impression by default.

The BoA endorses the principle that different features may carry different weight, but this presupposes careful consideration and clear justification framed according to how the product is used.

The BoA found that the Invalidity Division erred in its assessment under Article 6 EUDR by giving decisive weight to exterior similarities while treating internal features as practically irrelevant without providing any real justification as to why.

Sara Söderling is an Associate Partner at AWA Sweden AB and a member of the MARQUES Designs Team. The images in this blog post are taken from the BoA’s decision.