Home appliance manufacturing corporations Cuckoo sought a trial to invalidate the design of startup At-Home's food waste disposer amid a "design infringement" dispute, but it was rejected. After At-Home raised legal action over design similarity, Cuckoo tried to invalidate At-Home's previously registered design but was not recognized.
On the 18th, according to a compilation of reporting by ChosunBiz, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board recently dismissed Cuckoo's invalidation trial against the design registered by At-Home's manufacturing subsidiary, At-Home Plantech, for a "food waste disposer."
Cuckoo reportedly argued that two designs registered by At-Home's manufacturing subsidiary, At-Home Plantech, "lack originality and therefore the design registrations should be invalidated," but this was not accepted.
Cuckoo is reviewing whether to file a lawsuit with the Intellectual Property High Court to overturn the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board's decision. If a party objects to a decision by the board, the patent dispute proceeds to the Intellectual Property High Court and then the Supreme Court. A lawsuit may be filed with the Intellectual Property High Court within 30 days from the date of receiving the decision.
A Cuckoo official said, "We plan to take additional action depending on future developments."
Founded in 2018, At-Home drew strong interest, especially among single-person households, by launching mini dryers, dishwashers and food waste disposers under its small appliance brand "MINICS." After registering a "food waste disposer" design in 2023, At-Home Plantech additionally registered a design with some shape changes in May last year. Typically, manufacturers register variant designs alongside a base design to broaden the scope of their design rights.
Tensions between the two sides escalated when Cuckoo released its sixth-generation food waste disposer. When Cuckoo registered its product design in January last year, At-Home filed a trial with the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board seeking to invalidate the design.
At the time, At-Home argued, "(Cuckoo's design) is similar to, or could be easily created from, our registered design, so the registration should be invalidated."
The Design Protection Act stipulates that a design cannot be registered if it is the same as or similar to a design already disclosed domestically or abroad or widely known, and can be easily created with minimal changes.
While responding to the invalidation trial that had been filed, Cuckoo also filed additional trials in July and August last year to invalidate At-Home's designs. If the effect of a registered design is extinguished, it becomes difficult to assert rights or pursue legal actions such as damages. It is a strategy to shake the very basis of the rights to gain an upper hand in the dispute, but as the petitions were dismissed, the dispute continues.
The invalidation trial first filed by At-Home was decided to be dismissed in October last year. At that time, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board found that although the two designs had some similar parts, they did not appear overall similar when viewing the products. Since then, the two sides have been battling in the Intellectual Property High Court.
Cuckoo is said to have argued that its design differs because its exterior is rectangular with a control display panel on a flat surface, whereas At-Home's has an oval structure with top-mounted controls.
An At-Home official said, "We will work to protect our design asset, which reflects our long-accumulated food waste disposer design capabilities, consumer trust and brand identity."