DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 000960844-0009

Invalidity · first instance · 2026-02-10

000126940

Contested design: 000960844-0009

EUDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The application for a declaration of invalidity is rejected, and the applicant must pay the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text(de)

1. Der Antrag auf Nichtigerklärung des eingetragenen EU-Geschmacksmusters Nr. 000960844-0009 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 shown in the Conrad catalog excerpt.

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

Web disclosureD2

Wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com pages.

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

Web disclosureD3

Wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com pages.

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

Web disclosureD4

Wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com pages.

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

Web disclosureD5

Wire connector shown on archived tridonicatco-ct.com pages.

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

Utility modelD6

Screwless junction-box terminal disclosed in figures 15 and 17.

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

CatalogD7

In-Sure Push-In Wire Connector shown in the IDEAL catalog.

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

CatalogD8

Wire connector shown in the Ideal catalog extracts in TW13.

Ideal catalog

CatalogD9

Wire connector shown in the Ideal catalog extracts in TW13.

Ideal catalog

CatalogD10

Wire connector shown in the Ideal catalog extracts in TW13.

Ideal catalog

Web disclosureD11

Wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy pages.

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

Web disclosureD12

Wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy pages.

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

Web disclosureD13

Wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy pages.

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

Web disclosureD14

Wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy pages.

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

Web disclosureD15

Wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy pages.

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

Web disclosureD16

Wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy pages.

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

Web disclosureD17

Wire connector shown on archived mediagalaxy pages.

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

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 6(2)Article 7

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on numerous earlier connector designs disclosed in catalogs, websites, patents, and utility-model materials.
  • The holder argued that the cited disclosures did not defeat registration, disputed the applicant's weighting of technical features, and maintained that the contested design remained new and had individual character.
  • The Division accepted disclosure only for D1 to D17, rejected several other materials as insufficient, post-dated, grace-period, or procedurally inadmissible, and found Article 8(1) was not a pleaded ground.
  • Comparing each accepted earlier design separately, the Division found clear differences in proportions, front openings, insert framing, and overall shape, so the contested design kept novelty and individual character.
  • The invalidity application was rejected in full, and the applicant was ordered to reimburse the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

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
000126923

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