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 >> BRUTT BRUTT BAR BRUTT BOND BRUTT HELICAL (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2006] UKIntelP o10006 (10 April 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o10006.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o10006 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o10006
Result
Section 3(6): Application for invalidation failed. Section 60: Application failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
A somewhat involved case which requires careful reading. BRUTT is a family name and forms part of the name of companies formed by the family between June 1997 and September 1999. Of interest is the Brutt Helical Kft (Hungary) company which was formed in June 1997 with the aim of cooperation with Target Fixings Ltd (the registered proprietor). Target became a 50% shareholder on 4 May 1998.
Cooperation and a trading arrangement between Brutt and Target continued for some time but there was breakdown in 2000 when Target’s parent company withdrew from the joint venture and sold it shares in Brutt Helical (now Brutt Saver). At that time Target withdrew permission to use Target’s intellectual property, specifically, drawings, translated text and photographs. No mention was made of trade marks.
The applicants claim that target was allowed to use the name BRUTT but was never given permission to register it as a trade mark. In fact the registrations in suit only came to light when application was made to register the mark BRUTT at OHIM. Other proceedings are in force in OHIM, currently at appeal stage. The applicants claim ownership of the marks in suit whereas the registered proprietor claims to have adopted the marks because BRUTT is phonetically close to the English word BRUTE meaning strength.
The Hearing Officer examined the claims and counterclaims of the two parties in some detail but in the event he concluded that the onus of establishing that the registered proprietor had registered the marks in suit in bad faith, rested on the applicants. As the evidence was somewhat inconclusive he did not consider that that onus had been satisfied and therefore the application must fail.
In view of his decision under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer decided that the application under Section 60 must also fail.
