DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000960844-0006

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-10

000126923

Contested design: 000960844-0006

EUDRmedium-confidence extraction

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered EU design No 000960844-0006 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. 000960844-0006 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

Taylor Wessing

Holder · RCD owner

WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

Germany (DE)

Minden, Deutschland

Prior art cited (17)

CatalogD1

three-opening wire connector with a red or orange front

Conrad Profession Elektronik und Technik 2006 · Conrad Profession Elektronik und Technik 2006 catalog · disclosed 2006-12-31

Web disclosureD2

wire connector design

tridonicatco-ct.com (Wayback Machine) · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Web disclosureD3

wire connector design

tridonicatco-ct.com (Wayback Machine) · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Web disclosureD4

wire connector design

tridonicatco-ct.com (Wayback Machine) · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Web disclosureD5

wire connector design

tridonicatco-ct.com (Wayback Machine) · tridonicatco-ct.com / Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Utility modelD6

wire connector design shown in utility model figures

DE 203 03 537 U1, Fig. 15 and Fig. 17 · DPMA utility model publication · disclosed 2003-06-18

CatalogD7

In-Sure Push-In Wire Connector

IDEAL Power Vol. 12 2004 · IDEAL Power catalog · disclosed 2004-12-31

CatalogD8

wire connector design

Ideal catalog excerpts (TW13) · Ideal catalog excerpts

CatalogD9

wire connector design

Ideal catalog excerpts (TW13) · Ideal catalog excerpts

CatalogD10

wire connector design

Ideal catalog excerpts (TW13) · Ideal catalog excerpts

Web disclosureD11

wire connector design

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp (Wayback Machine) · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Web disclosureD12

wire connector design

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp (Wayback Machine) · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Web disclosureD13

wire connector design

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp (Wayback Machine) · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Web disclosureD14

wire connector design

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp (Wayback Machine) · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Web disclosureD15

wire connector design

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp (Wayback Machine) · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Web disclosureD16

wire connector design

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp (Wayback Machine) · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Web disclosureD17

wire connector design

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp (Wayback Machine) · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp / Internet Archive Wayback Machine

Legal grounds invoked

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

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, relying on multiple earlier connector designs and arguing that the contested design's features were already disclosed.
  • The holder argued that the cited disclosures did not defeat registration and that the contested EU design retained novelty and individual character despite the prior art and national litigation cited by the parties.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D1 to D17 as identified, rejected several other materials as inadequate or irrelevant, and found no proof that the contested design's relevant features were excluded as purely technical.
  • Comparing each accepted earlier design separately, the Division found sufficient differences in proportions, front openings, housing shape, and overall appearance, so the contested design remained novel and had individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberThorsten ICKENROTH

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
enEnglish (en)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
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
000129364

vs Wenzhou Haotian Electric Co., Ltd.

2026-05-05Art 25(1)(b)137
000130781

vs Huiru Fang

2026-02-11Art 25(1)(b)137
000126936

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126938

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126940

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126935

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126926

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126939

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137