Invalidity · first instance · 2021-11-08
000010525
Contested design: 002689687-0001
Outcome
The invalidity application is upheld; Registered Community design No 0026896870001 is declared invalid; the holder must pay the applicant’s costs fixed at EUR 350.
Show verbatim operative text
1. The application for a declaration of invalidity is upheld. 2. Registered Community design No 0026896870001 is declared invalid. 3. The holder bears the applicant’s costs, fixed at EUR 350.
CostsHolder ordered to pay costs of €350
Parties
Applicant · invalidity challenger
Allergan Holdings France SASvia PDF extraction
France (FR)
Tour CBX, 1 passerelle de Reflets, 92400 Courbevoie, France
Represented by
Holder · RCD owner
Ryan Murad LTD.via PDF extraction
Bulgaria (BG)
No. 47 ‘Cherni Vrah’ blvd., 1407 Sofia, Bulgaria
Represented by
Dimitar Todorov
Prior art cited (5)
word mark 'JUVEDERM ULTRA' for pharmaceutical products administered by injection for use in moisturising skin and reducing wrinkles
EUTM No 6 295 638 'JUVEDERM ULTRA' · EU trade mark register · disclosed 2008-08-21
word mark 'JUVEDERM'
EUTM No 2 196 822 'JUVEDERM' · EU trade mark register
word mark 'JUVÉDERM'
EUTM No 5 807 169 'JUVÉDERM' · EU trade mark register
word mark 'JUVEDERM'
French trade mark No 3 061 345 'JUVEDERM' · France
word mark 'JUVEDERM'
WO No 810 018 'JUVEDERM' · WIPO
Legal grounds invoked
Argument summary
- ›The applicant sought invalidity mainly under Article 25(1)(e), relying on the earlier EUTM JUVEDERM ULTRA and arguing that the contested logo used that sign without consent.
- ›The holder argued that the earlier mark differed because it included ULTRA, the goods were different, it owned its own JUVEDERM mark, and proof of use was required for other invoked marks.
- ›The Division held that logos may be used for any goods, treated the relevant goods as identical, and found JUVEDERM was the shared distinctive verbal element while ULTRA and the oval device were weak.
- ›Considering identical goods and average to high sign similarity, the Division found a likelihood of confusion under Article 25(1)(e), invalidated the design, and did not examine the remaining grounds further.
Deciding panel
- MemberJessica LEWIS
- MemberLudmila ČELIŠOVÁ
- MemberMichele M. BENEDETTI-ALOISI
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 000129181 vs VAN PHUONG TRAN | 2025-10-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |
| 000123376 vs Francesco Paolo Intini | 2024-05-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |
| 000123377 vs Francesco Paolo Intini | 2024-05-16 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |
| 000118720 vs VAN PHUONG TRAN | 2023-05-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |
| 000118797 vs VAN PHUONG TRAN | 2023-05-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |
| 000118777 vs VAN PHUONG TRAN | 2023-05-11 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |
| 000118577 vs aqotec Holding GmbH | 2023-03-28 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |
| 000105139 vs ETI GIDA SANAYI VE TICARET ANONIM SIRKETI | 2023-03-13 | REUD invalidated | Art 25(1)(e) | 32 | 8 |