Invalidity · first instance · 2025-05-28
000125985
Contested design: 001313878-0003
Outcome
The application for a declaration of invalidity of EU design No 001313878-0003 is rejected; the applicant must bear the holder's costs, fixed at EUR 400.
Show verbatim operative text(de)
Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 001313878-0003 wird zurückgewiesen. 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)
Mainz, Deutschland
Holder · RCD owner
Best on Bolt GmbH
Austria (AT)
Neumarkt im Tauchental, Österreich
Represented by
Prior art cited (4)
photographic image of a ring locking washer
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (web.archive.org capture) · best-on-bolt.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
photographic image of a ring locking washer
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (web.archive.org capture) · best-on-bolt.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
CAD drawing of a ring locking washer
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (web.archive.org capture) · best-on-bolt.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
CAD drawing of a ring locking washer
https://www.best-on-bolt.com/ (web.archive.org capture) · best-on-bolt.com via Wayback Machine · disclosed 2011-02-03
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for a ring locking washer design, arguing it was a component of a complex product whose visible features lacked novelty and individual character over D1 to D4.
- ›The holder replied that the design was a two-part washer, remained visible in use, and differed from the cited prior art in its fine radial grooves, chamfered outer ring, proportions, and overall shape.
- ›The Invalidity Division held that the applicant had not shown the contested design was a component of a specific complex product, so the Article 4(2) visibility limitation did not apply.
- ›The Division accepted the website disclosures as prior art but found the contested design created a different overall impression, so individual character and novelty were upheld and the invalidity application was rejected.
Deciding panel
- MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
- MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
- MemberBenjamin VAN BAVEL
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 |
| 000125981 vs Best on Bolt GmbH | 2025-02-24 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 08 | 7 |