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 >> BACTI GUARD (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o23605 (25 August 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o23605.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o23605 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23605
Result
Request to "strike out": - Appeal refused.
Points Of Interest
Summary
This was an appeal to the Appointed Person of the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 30 September 2004 (BL O/300/04). In that decision the Hearing Officer decided that he had the power to “strike out” the request for revocation but decided not to do so in this case. He also considered the effect of a co-existence agreement between the parties and concluded that the agreement did not prohibit the bringing of revocation proceedings for non-use and secondly, if the agreement did prohibit such proceedings, then the agreement was invalid and unenforceable as being an unreasonable restraint of trade.
The Appointed Person agreed generally with the Hearing Officer’s decision but not this reasoning in relation to his views on the agreement between the two parties. He therefore went on to consider the agreement in some detail and its effect in relation to the current revocation proceedings. In relation to the “restraint of trade” point he went on to consider the evidence which had been filed in these proceedings as he considered that it would be necessary to establish the factual and trading position of the two parties when the agreement was entered into in June 1978. In remitting the case to the Registrar, he asked that this matter be given further consideration and suggested that both parties should be asked to file further evidence to clarify matters
