Case No. IP-2019-000124

28.Although the web image is not very clear, Mr Erol accepted that the Lambert Souvenirs web image was of his product. He said that he produced it in his factory as samples in very limited quantities in 2008. 29.Mr Erol suggested that the Lambert Souvenirs image had been inserted in the web page “afterwards through editing”. I do not understand this. The web page was obtained via the Wayback Machine and (barring a highly sophisticated web-based fraud, which was not established) any editing would have had to have been done in 2008. I see no reason why anyone would have done so, particularly since Mr Erol accepted that the image shown was of his product and that he had indeed produced this product in 2008.30.Mr Erol claimed there were a number of differences between this product and the ‘066 design. These included (a) the use of 100% cotton rather in the Lambert Souvenirs product as to opposed 65% cotton/35% polyester in “the registered version”; (b) the absence of pockets in the Lambert Souvenirs product; (c) the use of more than 2 colours in the Lambert Souvenirs legend; and (d) the use of embroidery in the registered design, as opposed to a printed legend for Lambert Souvenirs. 31.I do not accept that any of these differences are important. Points (a) and (d) are irrelevant since they are not mentioned in or apparent from the registration. Points (b) and (c) can be discerned in the ‘066 design, but the overall impression of both the Lambert Souvenirs product and the ‘066 design is still the same. Mr Erol mentioned some other differences but they are all less important (both individually, and in combination) than those I have considered. I therefore find that the ‘066 design is invalid having regard to this prior art as well.