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.

Charlotte Duly of the MARQUES Education Team reviews Copyright in the Music Industry – A Practical Guide to Exploiting and Enforcing Rights (2^nd edition) by Hayleigh Bosher, published by Edward Elgar Publishing (Price £79.95 paperback, £136 hardback and available here).

The second edition of this text has been updated to include recent copyright case law in the music industry (including Ed Sheeran’s ‘Shape of You’ dispute) and covers topical areas such as streaming and AI.

This is not your usual legal text. This book has a light and humorous style whilst conveying complex copyright issues with clarity and the necessary depth to ensure that the reader is given sufficient information. For a good example on the humour point, look no further than the definition of “Parties” within the “Key Terms” section.

The book explains succinctly the benefit of copyright and why it is important, particularly in the music sector. The foreword from Tom Gray of the band Gomez provides an interesting comparison of copyright to real estate and the importance of ensuring that that is adequately protected stating “And, like any property, it needs walls, doors and a functioning lock. Because if you build a house and leave it open, don’t be surprised when Goldilocks PLC moves in, eats your Weetabix and rents out your spare room on Airbnb”.

This seems particularly apt with the increase in challenges to the music industry from streaming and more recently from the increased use of AI. This book is therefore a very useful text and is also fun and a pleasure to read: a pretty impressive combination.

In terms of the hot topics of AI and how authorship and ownership are treated of AI created works, this text considers the fundamental point of copyright, the core requirements for protection, and whether AI generated works should be granted copyright. No doubt this will be an ongoing conversation over many years and it is interesting to see the different and divergent approaches across the globe.

The lack of specific AI law in this field leads to the need to adapt copyright principles and case law to fit the ever evolving (in some cases rapidly) landscape. This book addresses that problem and provides useful context for dealing with AI in the modern world and balancing rights with technological progress.

A chapter is devoted to deepfakes and personality rights which will be of interest across the board, including to those outside the music industry. Whilst protection against deepfakes remains a difficult topic, the text is thorough and covers general principles noting that they differ from country to country.

There is also an interesting reminder of where you may find particular personality rights, including Guernsey which allows the protection of voice, likeness, appearance and other unique characteristics. This book contains points of interest for anybody involved with copyright whether they are in the music industry or not.

Whilst the music streaming platforms are looking to respond to the challenges that copyright owners face, this will not stop AI being misused and proactive steps combined with a sensible IP protection strategy will provide tools for taking action and being alert to issues early on.

This remains a constantly evolving landscape and copyright, along with other forms of IP, are key for those in the music industry to be able to continue to protect their rights and produce content for us to enjoy. This book is a useful tool in that ongoing challenge.

This post is part of an occasional series of book reviews by members of the MARQUES Education Team published on the Class 46 and Class 99 blogs. The picture shows the cover of the book

EUIPO has published the first EU designs represented using video and 3D, following the implementation of the final stage of the new EU designs regime on 1 July 2026.

The first video-represented EU design protects an animated graphical user interface for a mobile phone game. It was developed by Lessmore GmbH in Germany.

The first 3D-represented EU design protects a dice tray with a mobile phone holder. It is owned by Arranged BV in Belgium.

EUIPO says these registrations show how the new rules give designers greater flexibility to present their creations in the way they are actually experienced by users.

Video may be particularly relevant for designs that include animation or visual transitions, while 3D representation may help show the overall appearance of a product.

In the first half of July 2026, the EUIPO received 37 EU design filings using video and 20 using 3D representations. During the same period, the Office received 4 329 applications using static views, bringing the total number of designs received to 4,386.

The introduction of video and 3D representations reflects the increasing variety of digital and physical products for which design protection may be sought.

Applicants can consult the relevant EUIPO information and guidance to determine the most appropriate way to represent their design.

More information is available on the EUIPO website. The illustrations are taken from the online register

WIPO is hosting webinars on managing international design registrations over the next few weeks.

The webinars will cover how the Hague System enables you to centrally manage international design registrations through a single, streamlined procedure. Topics include:

• Recording changes in ownership
• Updating the holder’s name or address
• Appointing or changing a representative
• Renewing international registrations
• Managing your design portfolio efficiently throughout its lifecycle

The webinars are being held at the following times:

• Wednesday 22 July, 1600-1770 CEST (English)
• Thursday 23 July, 0900-1000 CEST (English)
• Thursday 30 July 1100-1200 CEST (French)
• Wednesday 5 August, 1600-1700 CEST (Spanish)

Find out more and book your place on WIPO’s website here. You can also play back recordings of webinars once they have taken place.

Eleven companies from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland, and the United States have won the WIPO Global Awards 2026.

The Awards reward SMEs and start-ups that demonstrate excellence in using IP. The winners were chose by a jury from a pool of 1,300 applications representing 126 countries.

Presenting the awards at a ceremony held during the WIPO Assemblies in Geneva, WIPO Director General Daren Tang said: “These Awards shine a spotlight on those exemplary SMEs that are not just registering and protecting their IP, but also using it strategically for business growth. We hope that they will inspire other entrepreneurs, and encourage policymakers to put in place programs and policies to help IP be part of every SMEs toolkit for success.”

The winners receive six months of 1:1 mentoring on IP strategy, market access and fundraising, and join the Global Awards Alumni Community, through which they connect with investors, accelerators, corporates and service providers.

The 2026 winners are:

• Agriculture & Food: SME: AgZen (United States) – AI-optimized crop spraying; Startup: Infira (Argentina) – Annual crops made perennials
• Environment: SME:  Botree (China) – Lithium battery recycling; Startup: FLOSFIA (Japan) – Energy-saving semiconductors for greener electronics
• Health: SME: ArteryFlow (China) – AI cardiovascular diagnostics platform; Startup: Regend Therapeutics (China) – Lung tissue regeneration
• Creative Industries: SME: Jade ND (Brazil) – Game-based learning platform for neurodivergent children; Startup: DABIDA (Republic of Korea) – Handwriting-based AI tutoring system
• ICT: SME: ICTK (Republic of Korea) – Keyless hardware security chips; Startup: Drovid (Chile) – Drones detecting human-caused forest fires early
• Sports: Special Award: Bearmind (Switzerland) – Helmet sensors tracking brain health in contact sports
• Special Mentions: Best Youth Entrepreneur 2026 – Vishnu Jayaprakash, CEO of AgZen (United States) (support for this recognition is provided by the ITC Ye! Community, a global platform powered by the International Trade Centre that connects young entrepreneurs with peers, mentors, and business opportunities) and Best Woman Entrepreneur 2026 – Renata Reinheimer, CEO of Infira (Argentina) (support for this recognition is provided by ITC SheTrades, an initiative of the International Trade Centre that works to create the conditions for women entrepreneurs to grow and trade internationally)

Photo: WIPO/Berrod from the WIPO LinkedIn page

EUIPO and the Ukrainian National Office for Intellectual Property and Innovations (UANIPIO) have integrated industrial design data from Ukraine into DesignView.

With this addition, DesignView now includes data from 78 participating IP offices.

The inclusion of Ukraine data into DesignView was implemented under the EU-funded EU4IP project, which supports Ukraine to align its IP framework with EU IP law and standards.

EUIPO said that, thanks to this integration, Ukraine moves closer to the EU national IP offices within the EUIPN, as well as user groups and other IP organisations, improving the IP system in Europe.

DesignView now contains more than 24.7 million industrial designs, including more than 98,300 designs from UANIPIO.

Since it was launched in November 2012, the tool has had nearly 12 million searches by users worldwide.

The US, Germany and the UK are the biggest users of the tool.

In a statement, EUIPO Executive Director João Negrão said: “The integration of Ukraine’s industrial designs into DesignView represents a key step forward in the country’s digital transformation and its alignment with the EU. By offering free, transparent, and comprehensive access to design data from around the world, DesignView supports creators and businesses to protect their intellectual property internationally. This milestone highlights the EUIPO's ongoing dedication to supporting the Ukrainian IP community through the EU-funded EU4IP project, leveraging regional expertise across the EUIPN to strengthen international partnerships.”

Olena Orliuk, Director of UANIPIO, added: “For Ukrainian designers, entrepreneurs and innovators, joining DesignView means becoming more visible to the world. Free access to reliable design information strengthens legal certainty, facilitates international business cooperation and helps promote Ukrainian creativity in global markets. It also represents tangible progress towards Ukraine’s integration into the European intellectual property ecosystem. We are grateful to the EUIPO for its support and cooperation in making this important step possible.”

Information and photo provided to MARQUES by EUIPO

Brand owners, in-house legal teams and IP practitioners will soon have wider opportunities to protect the visual appearance of digital and technology-driven products. On 1 July 2026, the second phase of the EU design law reform package enters into force, introducing important changes to the registration of industrial designs across the EU.

The reform is part of the broader modernisation of the EU design protection system, which includes amendments to the Community Design Regulation and a new Design Directive. It adapts design law to market realities in which product appearance is increasingly expressed through digital interfaces, animations, screen displays and other non-traditional formats.

Broader range of registrable designs

One of the most notable changes is the broader range of registrable designs. The updated framework will make it easier to protect animated designs, including interface transitions and moving visual elements, graphical user interfaces (GUIs), screen-displayed designs and computer-generated designs.

For lawyers advising clients in software, e-commerce, gaming, consumer electronics, fintech and digital platforms, these changes open up new filing strategies and portfolio management considerations.

Procedural improvements

The reform also introduces procedural improvements. EUIPO is simplifying the application process and enabling multi-design applications in new formats, including video files and image sequences for animated designs.

This should make registration better suited to digital products and reduce the mismatch between modern design assets and traditional static filing requirements.

Another practical change is the removal of the previous administrative limit of seven views per design. Applicants will have greater flexibility in presenting their designs, provided that the submitted views collectively show the design in a consistent and clear manner.

This is particularly important for complex or animated designs, where a limited number of static views may not adequately capture the relevant visual features.

The new rules will also allow applicants to correct obvious minor errors (immaterial alterations), provided that such corrections do not alter the identity of the design. This should help reduce unnecessary procedural obstacles where defects are technical or administrative in nature.

The reform creates an opportunity for legal advisers and rights holders to review existing design portfolios and identify digital assets that may now be suitable for registration. It is worth considering whether application interfaces, website layouts, e-commerce animations, on-screen packaging or digital product environments could qualify for protection.

Early action may be important. Filing promptly can help secure priority and strengthen protection against later competing designs. Advisers should also bear in mind that the 12-month grace period remains available, allowing a design to be filed within 12 months of its first disclosure to the market by the right holder.

Annual Conference workshop

Given the practical significance of these developments for the MARQUES community, Annual Conference participants are warmly invited to attend Workshop 5 – “The New Age of EU Designs: Practical orientations for valuable and effective protection through design rights following the EU Reform”, presented by the MARQUES Design Team in cooperation with the EUIPO.

The workshop aims to put the design reform into action and tackle issues that may arise with filing and enforcement of these new types of designs. Participants will work through a realistic filing scenario with built-in challenges, such as unity of design, background of design, immaterial alteration and disclosure issues.

The exercise will also address key legal considerations including scope of protection, enforcement strategies and the application of existing design case law to animated designs.

This post was written by Ewa Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, partner of WKB Wierciński, Kwieciński, Baehr sp. k. in Warsaw, Poland and a member of the MARQUES Designs Team