R0760/2025-3

• ›Applicant (appellant) argued the contested ring-locking washer RCD (UGM 1313878-0010) lacked novelty and individual character over D1–D4, being prior web disclosures on the holder's own website from 3 February 2011; he contended the product is a component of a complex product under Art. 4(2), limiting comparison to the outer-edge view, and that the radial notch arrangement was technically dictated (Art. 8(1)) and should be disregarded.
• ›Holder (respondent) argued the new prior designs D5/D6 and late evidence WIP-05–08 should be excluded as inadmissible; the RCD has individual character because differences in notch orientation (radial vs. angled), ring profile (cylindrical/chamfered vs. rounded or outward-curved), and color combination produce a different overall impression from each of D1–D4; designer freedom is constrained by function but the specific design choices are not technically dictated.
• ›The Board admitted WIP-05–08 as supplementary evidence relevant to the informed user and technical function arguments, but rejected D5/D6 as an inadmissible expansion of the invalidity grounds. It rejected the Art. 4(2) complex-product argument, finding no evidence the washer is a necessary component of a specific complex product. It held the informed user is not an expert able to isolate technically dictated features, so notch orientation and ring profile contribute to overall impression.
• ›Comparing the contested RCD individually against D1, D2, D3, and D4, the Board found the differences in notch orientation (radial vs. angled), notch overhang, ring edge profile, and color combination are sufficient to produce a different overall impression in each pairing; individual character confirmed; appeal dismissed and applicant bears costs.

• 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.