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 Ā£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 >> TEC -WOOD (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o33606 (27 November 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o33606.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o33606 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o33606
Result
Section 46(1)(b): Revocation allowed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The registration process of the mark in suit was completed on 23 April 1999. The application for revocation was made on 30 April 2004 so the relevant period is 30 April 1999 to 29 April 2004. Following the evidence stages the proprietor Mr Blackburn died but the proceedings continued even though it is not yet clear who owns the mark.
The registered proprietor filed evidence to the effect that it had an intention to develop a synthetic wood material and to manufacture doors from such material. A prototype door was produced and contact was made with a number of individuals who had expressed interest in the product but there was no evidence to suggest that the proprietor had moved beyond the product development stage or that he was about to put his product on the market. The Hearing Officer also expressed the view that there was doubt as to whether or not the specifications of the mark in suit covered doors.
The Hearing Officer carefully considered the evidence before him and considered that even taking a generous view of the evidence, he was not convinced that there had been any genuine use or that preparations had reached a stage where a product was to go on the market. The proprietor had not advanced any reason for non-use. Revocation allowed.
