Home appliance corporations At Home won a suit seeking to invalidate a registration against appliance maker Cuckoo Electronics over the design of a food waste processor. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board, the first-instance equivalent, had found the product designs to be different, but the Intellectual Property High Court overturned that. The products' overall appearance and sense of proportion served as the key elements in judging similarity.

Cuckoo Ecowhale (left) and AtHome Minix The Blender. /Courtesy of both companies

On the 21st, according to midsize business circles and the legal community, Cuckoo filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, challenging the Intellectual Property High Court's decision. The conflict between the two sides—sparked after At Home's manufacturing subsidiary At Home Plan Tech registered a food waste processor design in 2023 and Cuckoo registered a similar design in Jan. last year—appears headed for a final conclusion at the Supreme Court.

On this case, the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board and the Intellectual Property High Court reached different conclusions. Their differing standards for assessing design similarity changed the outcome. The board initially viewed the top of the food waste processor, where consumers' gaze lingers most, as the core part. It considered that the product is placed on kitchen or living room sinks and tables. It found that the presence or absence of a connection between the control panel on the top and the lid, and the direction of the filter cover holes on the top, distinguished the impressions of the two products.

By contrast, the Intellectual Property High Court put weight on the principle that the product's appearance should be observed as a whole rather than comparing it part by part.

It found that the rounded corners, the vertically elongated rectangular "track-type" main body and its curved treatment method, the proportions between the width and length of the top and the height of the main body, and the structure dividing the top into a lid and a filter cover are dominant features perceived by ordinary consumers when viewing the product. It viewed differences in the control panel and the direction of the filter cover holes as details that can be confirmed only by carefully comparing the two products.

Interpretations also diverged over how far to protect shapes already known in the industry. The Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board reasoned that the track-type main body, round buttons, and rear filter cover are elements commonly used in existing food waste processors, and thus judged that even if At Home's and Cuckoo's food waste processor designs are similar, their significance is low.

However, the Intellectual Property High Court viewed the track-type main body shape as an element that determines the product's overall impression. It further concluded that even if a product shape has been previously disclosed, it can serve as a key factor in a similarity assessment if it contributes to forming the overall impression of the product. It also said that because food waste processors can have alternative exteriors such as rectangular forms, it is difficult to regard the track-type main body as a functionally inevitable shape.

This year, for a newly launched food waste processor, Cuckoo applied a rectangular cuboid design instead of the product form that is the subject of litigation with At Home. Cuckoo has also used a rectangular cuboid design for food waste processors in the past. Cuckoo's position is that it released the product in a cube form to harmonize with the kitchen.

This case is expected to affect design similarity disputes for other home appliances such as water purifiers and air purifiers. An industry official said, "If the Intellectual Property High Court ruling is finalized by the Supreme Court, the overall form and sense of proportion of a product will become the criteria for judging similarity rather than detailed differences," adding, "Even if a product incorporates design elements that have been used before, whether the overall look of the product is similar will likely become more important."

※ This article has been translated by AI. Share your feedback here.