Invalidity · first instance · 2019-07-26
000101919
Contested design: 002815183-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld, the contested RCD is declared invalid, and the holder must pay the applicant's fixed costs of EUR 750.
Show verbatim operative text
The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. Registered Community design No 002815183-0001 is declared invalid. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 750.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €750
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Telehouse International Corporation of Europe Ltd.
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
Evgeniya Gancheva
Prior art cited (3)
TELEHOUSE logo shown on website printouts with Whois records for Telehouse EOOD
www.telehouse.bg · www.telehouse.bg / Whois · disclosed 2013-11-19
TELEHOUSE logo shown on Internet Archive Wayback Machine captures of the website
www.telehouse.bg · Internet Archive Wayback Machine · disclosed 2013-05-15
TELEHOUSE word mark registrations
United Kingdom, Spain, France, Germany and Benelux
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character, arguing that the TELEHOUSE logo had been disclosed on www.telehouse.bg before 08/10/2014 and also relying on earlier TELEHOUSE trademark and passing-off rights.
- ›The holder said the design was created for its Remote Control Hub, the cited website did not prove public disclosure of that product design before the grace period, and it contested the Article 25(1)(e) claim.
- ›The Division found the website and Internet Archive printouts objectively proved public disclosure of the earlier logo before the grace period and that intended product use did not affect comparison of the logo designs.
- ›The Division found the earlier and contested logos identical apart from immaterial colour-shade differences, so the RCD lacked novelty; it upheld the application and did not examine the remaining grounds.
Deciding panel
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVA
- MemberGailė SAKALAITĖ
- MemberKelly BENNETT
Decision files
| Language | Type | Source link |
|---|---|---|
| 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 ↗ |
Locarno classes
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000118577 vs aqotec Holding GmbH | 2023-03-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |
| 000103741 vs URBAN BUILDNG | 2019-05-27 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |
| 000011077 vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd | 2019-03-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |
| 000011081 vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd | 2019-03-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |
| 000011075 vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd | 2019-03-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |
| 000011067 vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd | 2019-03-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |
| 000011072 vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd | 2019-03-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |
| 000011068 vs DERMAVITA COMPANY ltd | 2019-03-26 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(b), Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 10 |