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!



BAILII [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 >> LOVETRAIN (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o24806 (31 August 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o24806.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o24806

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


LOVETRAIN (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o24806 (31 August 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o24806

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/248/06
Decision date
31 August 2006
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
LOVETRAIN
Classes
41
Applicant for Revocation
Stephen Williams, Dewi Richards, David Bird & David O’Brian
Registered Proprietor
Nigel Wanless
Revocation
Section 46(1)(b)

Result

Section 46(1): Revocation partially successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The mark in suit was registered as from 7 September 1994 in respect of the following services in Class 41 “services in the fields of stage presentations, discos, nightclubs, cabarets and dances and publishing; all included in Class 41”.

At the outset the application was for full revocation but after the filing of a counterstatement and evidence of use by the registered proprietor in respect of “disco and cabaret services” the application was amended to relate to the other services listed in the specification.

The Hearing Officer examined the registered proprietor’s evidence in detail and was satisfied that the services provided could reasonably be described as “disco and cabaret services”. He went on to examine these services in relation to the other services listed in the specification and took account of advice from earlier decided cases as to what would constitute a fair specification. In the event he decided none of the services provided by the registered proprietor could be described as “stage presentations, nightclub services, dance services or publishing” and that these services should be deleted from the specification of the mark in suit.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o24806.html