Invalidity · first instance · 2025-02-24
000125980
Contested design: 001313878-0009
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmusters Nr. 001313878-0009 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Der Antragsteller trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Matthias Josef Wintervia PDF extraction
Germany (DE)
Wilhelm-Theodor-Römheld-Str. 14, 55130 Mainz, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
Best on Bolt GmbH
Austria (AT)
Neumarkt im Tauchental 137, 7461 Neumarkt im Tauchental, Österreich
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
Photographic image of a wedge-lock washer (Ringsicherungsscheibe)
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (archived 2011-02-03) · best-on-bolt.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
Photographic image of a wedge-lock washer (Ringsicherungsscheibe)
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (archived 2011-02-03) · best-on-bolt.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
CAD depiction of a wedge-lock washer (Ringsicherungsscheibe)
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (archived 2011-02-03) · best-on-bolt.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
CAD depiction of a wedge-lock washer (Ringsicherungsscheibe)
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (archived 2011-02-03) · best-on-bolt.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›Applicant argued the contested RCD for a locking washer was a component of a complex product and lacked novelty and individual character.
- ›Applicant relied on D1 to D4 from best-on-bolt.com archived by the Wayback Machine on 3 February 2011; the holder filed no observations.
- ›The Division held applicant had not shown the washer was designed for a specific complex product, so the Article 4(2) visibility argument failed.
- ›It accepted D1 to D4 as disclosed prior art but found different groove orientation, outer ring shape, and proportions, producing a different overall impression.
- ›The invalidity application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.
Deciding panel
- MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
- MemberNatascha GALPERIN
- MemberThorsten ICKENROTH
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| enEnglish (en) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| deGerman | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000130884 vs Yigen Yang | 2026-04-02 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000130703 vs Biwei Lin | 2026-03-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000129381 vs EQUIPMOTOR LOCOMOTION DIRECT | 2026-02-23 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000130727 vs Qiang Qian | 2026-01-27 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000130282 vs Xiaodong SHAO | 2025-12-19 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000114141 vs M&T 1997,a.s. | 2025-12-15 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000126676 vs GH Holding Bjerre ApS | 2025-09-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |
| 000125985 vs Best on Bolt GmbH | 2025-05-28 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |