DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000960844-0002

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-10

000126938

Contested design: 000960844-0002

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity of EU design No. 000960844-0002 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. 000960844-0002 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-port wire connector with red or orange front

Conrad Profession Elektronik und Technik 2006, p. 784 · Conrad catalog · disclosed 2006-12-31

Web disclosureD2

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD3

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD4

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD5

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Utility modelD6

wire connector disclosed in utility model figures 15 and 17

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 shown in Ideal catalog extract

Ideal catalog extract · Ideal catalog

CatalogD9

wire connector shown in Ideal catalog extract

Ideal catalog extract · Ideal catalog

CatalogD10

wire connector shown in Ideal catalog extract

Ideal catalog extract · Ideal catalog

Web disclosureD11

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD12

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD13

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD14

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD15

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD16

wire connector shown on archived website

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

Web disclosureD17

wire connector shown on archived website

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

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 multiple earlier disclosures, especially connectors with transparent housings and colored inserts.
  • The holder denied the invalidity grounds, disputed the applicant's feature weighting and technical-function arguments, and maintained that the contested design remained new and distinctive.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D1 to D17, rejected several other materials as inadequate or irrelevant evidence, and found no proof that the contested features were exclusively dictated by technical function.
  • Comparing each admitted prior design individually, the Division found clear differences in proportions, opening shapes, insert presentation, and overall impression, so the invalidity application was rejected.

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
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
000126926

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

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

vs WAGO Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

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