We like to refresh things. Designers and producers like to refresh classic products hoping to receive "new old"�designs, although it doesn't mean that such facelift helps in crossing the red line between creating on an informed user an impression of a different individual character of a product and lack of such impression. This problem is particularly vital in automotive industry.

The examples of these difficulties in finding said border line might be noticed in Board of Appeal Decisions issued not long ago in cases described below.

The decision of January 11, 2018 (case number R1203/2016-3, Kraftfahrzeuge) concerned invalidation of CRD Nr. 762851-0001 (1-2) presented below. Several earlier versions of VW Cady (3, 4) were presented by the party aiming to invalidate this CRD, whereas the newest version was reported as contested design.

� 1.� 2.

� 3.4.

The Board of Appeal didn't agree with the Invalidity Division and found that the differences between the designs are sufficient to create a different overall impression. The reasoning was based on the statement that The informed user knows that car models which have been successful on the market are modernized over the years both technically and aesthetically. Despite the coincidence in the overall shape of the car, the differences in the design of the rear lid, the radiator grill, the position and shape of the head lights as well as the difference in the overall proportions will not go unnoticed.�The characteristic of relevant sector is that that designs for car models are necessarily adapted to new aesthetical developments.

In further decision of January 19, 2018 (Case number R1496/2015-3, Ciclomotori) Board of Appeal found CRD No 1 783 655-0002 (5, 6) as producing different overall impression on informed user than earlier designs (7, 8). This is because The scooter according to the contested RCD is characterized by essentially straight lines and angles whereas the earlier design is essentially dominated by curvaceous lines.

5. 6.

� 7.8.

In the next two decisions of�January 19, 2018 the Board was analyzing Porsche car designs (case number R0945/2016-3, Kraftfahrzeuge; R0941/2016-3 Personenkraftwagen, both appealed to General Court), and found contested designs 001230593-0001 (9) 000198387-0001 (11) as deprived of individual character due to publication of earlier designs (respectively 10, 12).

9.10.

11. 12.

The Board's reasoning referred to informed user who knows that designs for car models are necessarily adapted to new aesthetical developments�"Nevertheless, it does not follow that any minor alteration of the design will have a relevant impact on the overall impression. While there are some differences between the designs, the overall impression remains the same, taking into account that most of these differences concern features such as the head lights, the mirrors and the bumper which also serve a technical function".

When trying to sum up the above, the conclusion that prevails is that the "self-saturation"�of design market is dangerous for owners of classic and popular designs. From perspective of design proprietors, their long lasting success may lead to loss of possibility to protect new versions of old designs through their registration. It seems that new versions of designs where main body differs at least slightly from previous version shall be on the safe side, whereas modifications limited only to changes of small elements will not be found as sufficient.