DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 001313878-0010

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-02-24

000125995

Contested design: 001313878-0010

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity against Registered Community design No 001313878-0010 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. 001313878-0010 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

Prior art cited (4)

Web disclosureD1

photographic depiction of a ring locking washer

https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ · web.archive.org / best-on-bolt.com · disclosed 2011-02-03

Web disclosureD2

photographic depiction of a ring locking washer

https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ · web.archive.org / best-on-bolt.com · disclosed 2011-02-03

Web disclosureD3

CAD drawing of a ring locking washer

https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ · web.archive.org / best-on-bolt.com · disclosed 2011-02-03

Web disclosureD4

CAD drawing of a ring locking washer

https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ · web.archive.org / best-on-bolt.com · disclosed 2011-02-03

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 4(2)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested ring locking washer was a component of a complex product visible only at its outer edge in use and lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D4.
  • The holder filed no observations in response to the invalidity application.
  • The Division found the applicant had not shown the washer was designed for a specific complex product, so Article 4(2) did not limit the assessment to visible features in use.
  • The Division accepted D1 to D4 as prior web disclosures but found clear differences in groove direction, outer ring shape, and proportions, producing a different overall impression and preserving novelty and individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberThorsten ICKENROTH

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deGermanoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

08.08

Similar decisions

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

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000130884

vs Yigen Yang

2026-04-02Art 25(1)(b)087
000130703

vs Biwei Lin

2026-03-23Art 25(1)(b)087
000129381

vs EQUIPMOTOR LOCOMOTION DIRECT

2026-02-23Art 25(1)(b)087
000130727

vs Qiang Qian

2026-01-27Art 25(1)(b)087
000130282

vs Xiaodong SHAO

2025-12-19Art 25(1)(b)087
000114141

vs M&T 1997,a.s.

2025-12-15Art 25(1)(b)087
000126676

vs GH Holding Bjerre ApS

2025-09-10Art 25(1)(b)087
000125985

vs Best on Bolt GmbH

2025-05-28Art 25(1)(b)087