Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2026-03-02
R0756/2025-3
Contested design: 001313878-0007
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the applicant bears the holder's costs in both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Die Beschwerde wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Antragsteller trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin im Nichtigkeits- und Beschwerdeverfahren.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Matthias Josef Wintervia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Mainz, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
Best on Bolt GmbHvia PDF extraction
Austria (AT)
Neumarkt im Tauchental, Österreich
Represented by
Prior art cited (10)
Ringsicherungsscheibe (ring lock washer) from archived Best on Bolt GmbH website
www.best-on-bolt.com (archived) · disclosed 2011-02-03
Ringsicherungsscheibe (ring lock washer) from archived Best on Bolt GmbH website
www.best-on-bolt.com (archived) · disclosed 2011-02-03
Ringsicherungsscheibe (ring lock washer) from archived Best on Bolt GmbH website
www.best-on-bolt.com (archived) · disclosed 2011-02-03
Ringsicherungsscheibe (ring lock washer) from archived Best on Bolt GmbH website
www.best-on-bolt.com (archived) · disclosed 2011-02-03
Prior design from PCT application WO2005/024253 A1; introduced on appeal as additional invalidity ground
WO2005/024253 A1 (Annex WIP-08) · WIPO/PCT · disclosed 2005-03-17
Prior design from PCT application WO2005/024253 A1; introduced on appeal as additional invalidity ground
WO2005/024253 A1 (Annex WIP-08) · WIPO/PCT · disclosed 2005-03-17
Schraubensicherung (screw fastening device) with radial ribs; cited to argue Art. 8(1) technical conditionedness of knurling orientation
DE 2610401 A1 · Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
A method and a plant for washer production and a washer; cited to argue technical conditionedness of radially oriented ribs
WO2011/133090 A1 · WIPO/PCT · disclosed 2011-10-27
A method and a device for the manufacturing of washers for locking and washer for locking; cited to argue technical conditionedness
WO2009/041906 A1 · WIPO/PCT · disclosed 2009-04-02
Retaining element for blocking screw elements; cited for Art. 8(1) argument and as source of rejected new prior designs D5/D6
WO2005/024253 A1 · WIPO/PCT · disclosed 2005-03-17
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant (appellant) argued the contested RCD for ring lock washers (Unterlagscheiben für Schrauben, UGM 1313878-0007) lacks individual character over prior designs D1–D4 from the holder's own archived website; contended the knurling/ribbing orientation is purely technically determined (Art. 8(1)) and the dominant impression is the enclosing outer ring; also argued the product is a component of a complex product under Art. 4(2).
- ›Holder (respondent) requested rejection of new evidence (WIP-05–WIP-08) as late-filed; upheld the first-instance finding of individual character; identified additional distinctions including a chiselled/protruding side-view structure unique to the contested RCD, chamfer, ring profile differences, and colour contrasts.
- ›The Board admitted WIP-05–WIP-08 for the Art. 8(1) technical-function argument (finding them prima facie relevant to challenge the first-instance reasoning on notch orientation) but rejected D5/D6 as an inadmissible post-filing expansion of the invalidity scope; the complex-product argument under Art. 4(2) was dismissed as the applicant did not show the washer is indispensable to the intended use of the complex product.
- ›The Board held the informed user is not a technician capable of distinguishing technically-determined from discretionary features; comparing the contested RCD individually with each of D1–D4, it found a different overall impression due to radial vs. angled notch orientation, notches protruding beyond the ring edge, presence of chamfer, colour differences, and ring profile variations; WIP-05–WIP-08 did not establish that the notch orientation is exclusively technically determined under Art. 8(1).
- ›The appeal was dismissed in its entirety; individual character of the contested RCD under Art. 6 CDR was confirmed; the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs for both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.
Deciding panel
- ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
- RapporteurE. Fink
- MemberC. Bartos
- RegistrarK. Zajfert
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Similar decisions
Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.
| Case | Date | Outcome | Shared grounds | Locarno | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0947/2025-3 | 2026-04-07 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0760/2025-3 | 2026-03-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0754/2025-3 | 2026-03-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0759/2025-3 | 2026-03-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0758/2025-3 | 2026-03-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0755/2025-3 | 2026-03-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R0753/2025-3 | 2026-03-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |
| R1235/2025-3 | 2026-03-02 | Decision confirmed | Art 4(2), Art 63(2) | — | 7 |