R0753/2025-3

• ›Applicant (invalidity applicant) appealed the first-instance rejection of his challenge to EUD 001313878-0002 (ring lock washers), arguing the design lacked individual character over D1–D4 from the holder's own website (Feb 2011); he also argued the product was a component of a complex product so only the side view was relevant, and submitted new patent evidence (WIP-05 to WIP-08) to show the notch arrangement was technically mandated.
• ›Holder (respondent) argued that new prior designs D5/D6 should be rejected as an inadmissible expansion of scope, that WIP-05 to WIP-08 were filed late and should be excluded, and that the design had individual character due to its radially arranged incisions and chamfered cylindrical outer ring, which differed clearly from D1–D4.
• ›The Board rejected D5/D6 as inadmissible (impermissible expansion of invalidity scope), but exercised discretion to admit WIP-05 to WIP-08 as supplementary evidence; it dismissed the complex-product argument because the applicant failed to show that ring lock washers were essential for the intended use of a motor vehicle; the Board also held that the informed user is not a technical expert and cannot distinguish technically mandated from non-mandated features.
• ›On the overall impression, the Board upheld the first-instance finding: the contested design's radially arranged, protruding incisions and chamfered ring edge produced a clearly different overall impression from D1–D4, which all showed diagonally arranged incisions flush with the ring — differences the informed user would not overlook.
• ›Appeal dismissed; the applicant bears the holder's costs in both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

• ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
• RapporteurE. Fink
• MemberC. Bartos
• RegistrarM. Chaleva

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.