R1235/2025-3

• ›Applicant (appellant) argued the contested RCD for lock washers (Unterlagscheiben für Schrauben, RCD No. 1313878-0003) lacked individual character over D1–D4 (four designs from the holder's own website www.best-on-bolt.com, archived 3 February 2011), contending the radially oriented knurling was purely technically dictated under Article 8(1) and that the ring encasing the washer pair was the sole design-relevant distinguishing feature; he also invoked the complex-product visibility restriction under Article 4(2) on the basis that the washer is used in motorsport assemblies.
• ›Holder (respondent) sought exclusion of late-filed WIP-05 to WIP-08 as impermissibly late, rejected the Article 4(2) argument as unproven, and defended the first-instance finding of individual character, emphasising that radial knurling (versus angled in all prior art), the chamfer on the cylindrical outer ring, and the slight protrusion of wedge faces beyond the ring edges created a clearly different overall impression from D1–D4.
• ›The Board dismissed D5/D6 as an impermissible expansion of the invalidity subject-matter on appeal (Antragsteller cannot introduce new prior designs not cited in the original application); admitted the applicant's unsolicited January 2026 reply for due-process reasons under Article 63(2) GGV; rejected the Article 4(2) complex-product argument (lock washers are standard fastening components, not parts without which a complex product cannot function); and found WIP-05 to WIP-08 did not establish that the orientation, count or form of the knurling was solely technically dictated under Article 8(1).
• ›Comparing each of D1–D4 individually, the Board confirmed a different overall impression: the contested RCD shows narrower, more numerous, radially arranged notches that protrude slightly beyond the ring edges (chiselled effect) and a chamfered cylindrical ring, whereas all four prior designs show broader, angled notches flush with the ring and varying ring profiles; with average design freedom, the informed user does not overlook these differences.
• ›Appeal dismissed; the applicant ordered to bear the holder's costs for both the invalidity and the appeal proceedings; no fixed cost amount stated.

• 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.