R0754/2025-3

• ›Applicant (appellant) argued the contested ring locking washer RCD (UGM 1313878-0004, filed 9 February 2012) lacked novelty and individual character over four prior disclosures (D1–D4) identified on the holder's own website archived 3 February 2011; additionally contended the product is a component of a complex product under Art. 4(2) UGV and that the radial knurling is technically dictated and excluded under Art. 8(1) UGV.
• ›Holder (respondent) sought exclusion of new appeal-stage evidence WIP-05 to WIP-08 as belated; argued limited designer freedom; contended the informed user would notice distinctive differences including radial versus oblique groove orientation, cylindrical ring with chamfer versus rounded ring edges, and a protruding chiseled structure visible in side view — collectively yielding a different overall impression.
• ›Board admitted late evidence WIP-05 to WIP-08 but rejected new prior art D5 and D6 as an inadmissible expansion of the invalidity application; held the ring locking washer is not a component of a complex product under Art. 4(2); found applicant failed to prove that radial groove orientation is solely technically dictated under Art. 8(1); confirmed the informed user (an attentive craftsman) would perceive the radial vs. oblique groove arrangement and ring design differences as producing a distinct overall impression over each of D1–D4.
• ›Appeal dismissed; the first-instance decision correctly rejected the invalidity application since none of the prior art designs undermines the individual character of the contested RCD.

• ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
• RapporteurE. Fink
• MemberC. Bartos
• RegistrarK. Zajfert

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