Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-11-03
R2043/2019-3
Contested design: 002815183-0001
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed; the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant’s fees and costs, fixed at EUR 1,250.
Show verbatim operative text
1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant; 3. Fixes the amount of fees and costs to be paid by the design holder to the invalidity applicant with respect to the invalidity proceedings and appeal proceedings at EUR 1 250.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €1,250
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd.via PDF extraction
United Kingdom (GB)
Coriander Avenue, London E14 2AA, United Kingdom
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
TELEHOUSEvia PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
Mladost District, Bl.212, Fl. 11, Ap. 55, 1799 Sofia, Bulgaria
Represented by
Eugeniya Gancheva
Prior art cited (2)
earlier TELEHOUSE logo used on the design holder’s website
www.telehouse.bg / Wayback Machine printouts · www.telehouse.bg and Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2013-11-19
earlier word mark TELEHOUSE
EUTM No 327 445 · EUIPO trade mark register
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The design holder argued that the website and Wayback Machine printouts did not reliably prove prior disclosure of the logo and that the invalidity applicant’s TELEHOUSE trade marks were weak, descriptive, and not linked to similar goods or services.
- ›The invalidity applicant replied that the TELEHOUSE logo had been publicly displayed on www.telehouse.bg before the grace period and that its earlier TELEHOUSE trade marks entitled it to prohibit use of the same or a highly similar sign in the contested design.
- ›The Board found that the website and archived printouts sufficiently proved disclosure of an identical prior logo before the grace period, so the contested RCD lacked novelty; it also held that the TELEHOUSE word mark was used in the RCD and created a likelihood of confusion under Article 25(1)(e) CDR.
- ›The appeal was dismissed, the first-instance invalidity finding stood, and the design holder was ordered to pay EUR 1,250 in fees and costs.
Deciding panel
- ChairTh. M. Margellos
- RapporteurH. Salmi
- MemberC. Negro
- Registrarp.o. R. Vidal
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| deDeutsch (de) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| esespañol (es) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| frfrançais (fr) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| ititaliano (it) | machine translated | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
| enEnglish | original | Download original from EUIPO ↗ |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0181/2025-3 | 2025-05-27 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0827/2024-3 | 2025-03-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1336/2024-3 | 2025-03-03 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R0797/2024-3 | 2025-01-16 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1123/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1125/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1124/2021-3 | 2024-12-10 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b) | — | 5 |
| R1669/2023-3 | 2024-11-18 | Decision confirmed | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | — | 5 |