BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> LOVELETTERS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o23802 (10 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o23802.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o23802 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23802
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b) - Revocation action successful
Points Of Interest
Summary
The application for revocation, claiming non-use of the registered mark, was filed on 8 September 2000.
The current registered proprietor stated that it had acquired the mark from the previous proprietor in October 1999. Once the mark had been purchased an agreement had been entered into with the firm of Petty Wood & Co to produce confectionery for their Spring 2001 range. An example of the agreed packaging was provided by the proprietor; also a copy of a brochure said to have been produced in June 2000 by Petty Wood which shows the product. It was claimed the brochure was circulated in June 2000; that goods were being manufactured for the “last 4-5 months” and a copy of a purchase order dated 8 December 2000 for £1,749 worth of LOVE LETTERS in the nature of samples, was provided. The purchase order had a delivery date of 18 December.
The applicant disputed that the evidence provided was sufficient to show that sales under the mark had taken place before the relevant date of 8 September 2000.
The Hearing Officer considered carefully the evidence filed by the registered proprietor. He noted that some of the material was undated; there was no corroborative evidence from the other party said to be involved and it appeared unlikely that a spring catalogue for 2001 would be issued in June 2000. The registered proprietor had had the opportunity to file clear and unambiguous evidence of use of its mark and had failed to do so. The registered proprietor had thus failed to discharge the onus that was placed on it by Section 100 of the Act and the Hearing Officer concluded that the revocation action must succeed.
