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 >> POWERFOAM (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2004] UKIntelP o12704 (12 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o12704.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o12704 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o12704
Result
Application for invalidation Section 47(1) (citing Section 3(6)).
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicant for invalidation of this International Trade Mark claimed that they had used the mark in the UK since 1981 and the registered proprietor had served as a local distributor in the UK and elsewhere. Hence the registered proprietor had had the mark registered in bad faith.
Following a review of the relevant authorities concerning ‘bad faith’ under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer turned to consider the facts in this case. He recorded his view that much of the evidence filed in the case amounted to little more than unsupported assertion; and neither party had applied to cross examine the other’s witnesses. For the applicant to succeed they needed to make out a prima facie case establishing that: (i) the registered proprietor could not reasonably have believed that he possessed the goodwill in the POWERFOAM mark in the UK and (ii) that he had registered the mark to take unfair advantage of the applicant’s plans for the UK market following the termination of “the agreement” between the parties. The Hearing Officer noted that the evidence left much to speculation and inference. It was not enough. The applicant had not discharged the onus on them to provide a prima facie case and the application for invalidation failed accordingly.
