The appellant, Mr. Luís Pablo filed an appeal based on procedural infringement and an appeal limited to the points of law (Recurso de casación) against the judgment ruled by the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Section No. 5) dated July 12, 2017 favorable to Canela Joyería Artesana S.L., where it was denied the existence of design infringement. We refer below to the designs at stake:

Previous design                                    Design owned by Canela Joyería Artesana

                       

In this regard, the Appeal Court (Audiencia) stated in its judgement that regardless of being in front of two similar designs, “the subsequent design has differentiating elements which add singularity and are sufficient to determine that the overall impression is perceived in a different way by users”. The appellant argues that the design lacks individual character and novelty and thus it will be perceived as a copy creating confusion among consumers.

The appellant claims the misinterpretation of infringement by interpreting the Appeal Court in a wrong way Article 7 of the Spanish Act 20/2003 of the Legal Protection of the Design by not following the parameters of the settled case law in the field. This ground is dismissed by the Court. In accordance to the judgment of the Supreme Court No. 101/2016 of February 25 in relation to the assessment of an industrial design, it is agreed that “the most relevant elements of the design will determine the overall impression in the informed user, and therefore they are to be taken into consideration when doing a comparative analysis”.

Taking into consideration all the above, it cannot be argued that the appealed judgment contravenes the case law and doctrine, since in such decision the differentiating elements of the designs are assessed (the thickness of the volume´s shapes, the closed and independent column upon the basis and the hitch of a zircon) and the overall impression that creates in the informed user, being those sufficient for the public to differentiate them.

Consequently, the appeal is to be dismissed in its entirety for being inadmissible.

Supreme Court Judgement (First Chamber) November 20, 2019 within the Appeal Proceedings 4291/2017