DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000960844-0015

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-10

000126925

Contested design: 000960844-0015

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. 000960844-0015 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

wire connector

"Conrad Profession Elektronik und Technik 2006", p. 784, model 773 (3-pole) · Conrad catalog · disclosed 2006-12-31

Web disclosureD2

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD3

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD4

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD5

wire connector

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

Utility modelD6

Schraubenlose Dosenklemme

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

CatalogD7

In-Sure Push-In Wire Connector

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

CatalogD8

wire connector

"Ideal" catalog extracts · Ideal online catalog

CatalogD9

wire connector

"Ideal" catalog extracts · Ideal online catalog

CatalogD10

wire connector

"Ideal" catalog extracts · Ideal online catalog

Web disclosureD11

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD12

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD13

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD14

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD15

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD16

wire connector

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

Web disclosureD17

wire connector

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

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 numerous earlier wire-connector disclosures and arguing that key design features were already known.
  • The holder contested the disclosures and comparisons, argued the contested design remained new and individual, and denied that the identified features were purely technically dictated.
  • The Division accepted only some cited disclosures, found no proof that any relevant features were excluded under Article 8(1), and assessed designer freedom for connection terminals as average.
  • Comparing D1 to D17 individually, the Division held that all earlier designs created a different overall impression, especially because none showed the contested design's double row of four openings.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full and the applicant was ordered to pay the holder's fixed costs of EUR 400.

Deciding panel

  • MemberNatascha GALPERIN
  • MemberWolfgang SCHRAMEK
  • 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
000126935

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126936

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

2026-02-10Art 25(1)(b)137
000126923

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

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

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

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

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

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

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

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