DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 002256354-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2018-11-12

000010540

Contested design: 002256354-0007

CDR

Outcome

Invalidated (total)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld, the contested Registered Community design No 002256354-0007 is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's costs fixed at EUR 750.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

Dem Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung wird stattgegeben. Das eingetragene Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster Nr. 002256354-0007 wird für nichtig erklärt. Die Inhaberin trägt die Kosten der Antragstellerin, die auf 750 EUR festgesetzt werden.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Ningbo Degson Electronics Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

No. 1585 Xiaolin Road, Cixi, Ningbo, Zhejiang 315321, Volksrepublik China

Represented by

KLAKA

Holder · RCD owner

WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

Germany (DE)

Hansastr. 27, 32423 Minden, Deutschland

Prior art cited (2)

Registered RCD

Leiterplattenklemme

001733239-0003 · eSearch database of the Office; Community Designs Bulletin · disclosed 2010-07-22

Patent

Betätigungseinrichtung für eine elektrische Anschlussklemme

EP 2 375 503 B1 · European Patent Office · disclosed 2011-10-12

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4Article 6(1)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued that the contested PCB terminal block design lacked individual character over earlier RCD No 001733239-0003 and also raised visibility and technical-function objections under Articles 4(2) and 8(1).
  • The holder contended the product remained visible in use, its housing allowed many design choices, and the cited earlier design created a different overall impression, especially through its push-buttons and shape details.
  • The Division accepted disclosure of the earlier RCD and treated both designs as PCB terminal blocks for the same market, with only limited functional constraints on designer freedom.
  • It found the differences, including push-buttons versus operating openings, mainly reflected alternative technical solutions and did not alter the very similar overall impression on the informed user.
  • The contested design therefore lacked individual character under Article 6(1)(b); the invalidity application was upheld, making examination of the other pleaded grounds unnecessary.

Deciding panel

  • MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

13.03

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129383

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129363

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-03-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131764

vs Dongguan Penghui New Energy Technology Co., Ltd

2026-03-19REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129921

vs SHENZHEN EASTKING TECHNOLOGY CO.,LTD

2026-03-13REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000131186

vs Electronic Way Technology Co.,Ltd

2026-03-09REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128636

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000128598

vs Guangzhou Quemou Trading Co., Ltd.

2026-02-17REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138
000129221

vs Shenzhen Guangtuo Da Lighting Co., LTD

2026-01-27REUD invalidatedArt 25(1)(b)138