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 >> BSA by R2 (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o14407 (29 May 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o14407.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o14407 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o14407
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b) & Rule 33: Appeal allowed and proceedings remitted back to the Registrar.
Points Of Interest
Summary
See the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 18 October 2006 (BL O/294/06).
The Appointed Person reviewed carefully the papers filed in the proceedings and the Hearing Officer’s decision referred to above.
As regards amendment of application forms for revocation the Appointed Person accepted that such amendments could be allowed but there should be a formal application rather than a request made by telephone. At the very least if the latter method was used any amendment should be properly made, and signed and dated.
The Appointed Person also noted that the calculation of the five year period following registration, for revocation purposes, was incorrect and he carried out a full review of the matters to be considered in calculating this period. It is now Registry practice to use the new form of calculation.
The Appointed Person noted that the request to amend the mark in suit could not impact on these proceedings but he observed that the application had not been handled effectively and that the matter should be revisited by the Registry.
The main ground of the appeal related to the Registrar’s refusal to accept that the evidence filed with the proprietor’s counterstatement was sufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 31(1). The Appointed Person decided that the Registrar had set too high a standard to be met in relation to Rule 31(3) bearing in mind the fact that the registered proprietor had another opportunity under Rule 31(4) to supplement his initial evidence later in the proceedings, Hearing Officer’s decision set aside and proceedings remitted to the Registrar.
