DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 003384643-0007

Invalidity · first instance · 2025-08-01

000124975

Contested design: 003384643-0007

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 003384643-0007 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werde.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Tianli Electrical Machinery (Ningbo) Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction

China (CN)

Ningbo, Zhejiang, China

Holder · RCD owner

WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

Germany (DE)

Minden, Deutschland

Prior art cited (3)

PatentD1⚠ rejected as evidence

Offenlegungsschrift der Patentanmeldung für eine Leiterplattenklemme mit Betätigungshebel

DE 10 2014 114 026 A1 · DPMA · disclosed 2016-03-31

Registered RCDD2

Auszug der EUIPO-Datenbank zu einem älteren Unionsgeschmacksmuster

001024517-0016 · EUIPO database · disclosed 2008-11-11

National designD3

Auszug zu einer chinesischen Designeintragung

CN 303143222 S · Chinese intellectual property office database · disclosed 2015-03-25

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)Article 8(1)

Argument summary

  • The applicant argued the contested design was dictated solely by technical function and lacked novelty and individual character over D1, D2 and D3.
  • The holder said aesthetic choices remained, D1 fell within the Article 7(2) grace period, D2 and D3 created different overall impressions, and D3 was initially challenged for lack of translation.
  • The Division rejected the restitutio request but admitted the late submission as a clarifying supplement under its discretion.
  • On the merits, it found not all visible features were exclusively technically dictated, excluded D1 under Article 7(2), and held D2 and D3 produced different overall impressions and were not identical.
  • The invalidity application was dismissed in full and the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 400 in costs.

Deciding panel

  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberAlvaro SESMA MERINO
  • MemberThorsten ICKENROTH

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
000124937

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2025-07-14Art 25(1)(b)137
000126960

vs Qiu Chen

2025-05-21Art 25(1)(b)137
000122734

vs Changjiang Xutangrui Technology Co., Ltd.

2024-06-05Art 25(1)(b)137
000122617

vs Shanghai Cuiliang E-commerce Co., Ltd

2024-02-19Art 25(1)(b)137
000121023

vs Piotr Malinowski

2023-07-21Art 25(1)(b)137
000117379

vs WATT AND SEA

2022-12-13Art 25(1)(b)137
000116129

vs WD Plus GmbH

2022-08-30Art 25(1)(b)137
000111943

vs Shenzhen Cuco Smart Technology Co., Ltd

2021-01-22Art 25(1)(b)137