Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-10
000126922
Contested design: 000960844-0003
Outcome
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. 000960844-0003 wird zurückgewiesen. 2. Die Antragstellerin trägt die Kosten der Inhaberin, die auf 400 EUR festgesetzt werden.
CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Heavy Power Co., Ltd.via PDF extraction
Taiwan (TW)
Taipei City, Taiwan
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH
Germany (DE)
Minden, Deutschland
Prior art cited (17)
wire connector with three openings and a red or orange front
Conrad Profession Elektronik und Technik 2006 catalog · disclosed 2006-12-31
wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com extracts
tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive · disclosed 2007-10-14
wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com extracts
tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive · disclosed 2007-10-14
wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com extracts
tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive · disclosed 2007-10-14
wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com extracts
tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive · disclosed 2007-10-14
wire connector shown in Figures 15 and 17
DE 203 03 537 U1 · DPMA utility model publication · disclosed 2003-06-18
In-Sure Push-In Wire Connector
IDEAL Power Vol. 12 2004 · IDEAL Power catalog · disclosed 2004-12-31
wire connector shown in the online Ideal catalog extracts
Ideal online catalog
wire connector shown in the online Ideal catalog extracts
Ideal online catalog
wire connector shown in the online Ideal catalog extracts
Ideal online catalog
wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy.co.jp extracts
http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive captures dated 2007-10-06 and 2007-10-07
wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy.co.jp extracts
http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive captures dated 2007-10-06 and 2007-10-07
wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy.co.jp extracts
http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive captures dated 2007-10-06 and 2007-10-07
wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy.co.jp extracts
http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive captures dated 2007-10-06 and 2007-10-07
wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy.co.jp extracts
http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive captures dated 2007-10-06 and 2007-10-07
wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy.co.jp extracts
http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive captures dated 2007-10-06 and 2007-10-07
wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy.co.jp extracts
http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive captures dated 2007-10-06 and 2007-10-07
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant argued that the contested wire-connector design lacked novelty and individual character over numerous earlier connector designs and that several visible features were technically dictated.
- ›The holder replied that the cited disclosures did not bar protection, the design remained new and individual, and the applicant overstated the technical nature of the contested features.
- ›The Division accepted disclosure only for the specifically identified prior designs D1 to D17, rejected or disregarded other materials, and found that exclusive technical-function objections were not proven.
- ›It assessed designer freedom for wire connectors as average and found repeated differences in proportions, opening shapes, insert framing, and surface structure between the contested design and each earlier design.
- ›The application was rejected because the contested design retained novelty and individual character, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129364 vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd. | 2026-05-05 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000130781 vs Huiru Fang | 2026-02-11 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126935 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2026-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126936 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2026-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126923 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2026-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126940 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2026-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126938 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2026-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |
| 000126926 vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH | 2026-02-10 | — | Art 25(1)(b) | 13 | 7 |