Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-10

000126924

Contested design: 000960844-0012

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application 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. 000960844-0012 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

Represented by

Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB

Prior art cited (17)

CatalogD1

wire connector with three openings and 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 shown in archived website extracts

tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Web disclosureD3

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Web disclosureD4

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Web disclosureD5

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

tridonicatco-ct.com · tridonicatco-ct.com via Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2007-10-14

Utility modelD6

wire connector disclosed in figures 15 and 17

DE 203 03 537 U1 · DPMA utility model publication · disclosed 2003-06-18

CatalogD7

In-Sure Push-In Wire Connector

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

CatalogD8

wire connector shown in catalog extract

Ideal catalog extract · Ideal catalog extract (TW13)

CatalogD9

wire connector shown in catalog extract

Ideal catalog extract · Ideal catalog extract (TW13)

CatalogD10

wire connector shown in catalog extract

Ideal catalog extract · Ideal catalog extract (TW13)

Web disclosureD11

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

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

Web disclosureD12

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

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

Web disclosureD13

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

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

Web disclosureD14

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

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

Web disclosureD15

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

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

Web disclosureD16

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

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

Web disclosureD17

wire connector shown in archived website extracts

http://www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp · www5.mediagalaxy.co.jp via 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 argued that the contested connector design lacked novelty and individual character over numerous earlier connector disclosures and that several visible features were technically driven.
›The holder disputed the relevance and disclosure of the cited material, maintained that the design remained new and individual, and argued that the applicant overstated the technical significance of certain features.
›The Division accepted disclosure only for D1 to D17, rejected the claim that the design features shown were proven to be exclusively technically dictated, and considered designer freedom for connection terminals to be average.
›Comparing each earlier design individually with the contested EUD, the Division found clear differences in proportions, housing shape, front openings, and overall impression, so the invalidity application was dismissed.

Deciding panel

MemberNatascha GALPERIN
MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
MemberThorsten ICKENROTH

Decision files

Language	Type	Source link
enEnglish (en)	machine translated	Download original from EUIPO ↗
deGerman	original	Download 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.

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