Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.6.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 158/21 |

---

Action brought on 25 April 2008 — Shenzhen Taiden Industrial v OHIM — Bosch Security Systems (design of communications equipment)

(Case T-153/08)

(2008/C 158/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Shenzhen Taiden Industrial Co., Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. Hartmann, M. Helmer, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bosch Security Systems BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2008 in case R 1437/2006-3; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design for the product ‘communications equipment’ — registered Community design No 214903-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design produced as evidence by the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: An earlier design made available to the public by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV registered as an international design under No DM/055655

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Invalidity Division and declaration that the contested design is invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Third Board of Appeal relied on alleged facts presented by the party requesting the declaration of invalidity for which no evidence was submitted; infringement of Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Third Board of Appeal erred in holding that the contested design lacked individual character and failed to assess and compare the designs at hand from the point of view of an informed user.

---

[Top](#document1)