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 >> OMEGA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o02703 (30 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o02703.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o2703, [2003] UKIntelP o02703

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


OMEGA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o02703 (30 January 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o02703

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/027/03
Decision date
30 January 2003
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
OMEGA
Classes
09
Applicant for Partial Revocation
Omega Engineering, Inc
Registered Proprietor
Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd)
Revocation
Sections 46(1)(a) & (1)(b)

Result

Section 46(1)(a) - Partial Revocation failed

Section 46(1)(b) - Partial Revocation action (partially successful)

Points Of Interest

Summary

The above registered mark was registered for a range of goods in Class 9 and the partial revocation requested was in respect of all goods other than "Sports timing equipment".

The registered proprietors claimed use in respect of a range of goods while admitting that there had been no use in respect of "Life saving and weighing instruments and apparatus". The registered proprietors evidence in support of their claims was somewhat vague and unfocussed and in many instances statements made were not supported by the exhibits and documentation. Having carefully sifted through the evidence the Hearing Officer concluded that the registered proprietors had only shown use in respect of "measuring and signalling apparatus and instruments, all for use in sport" and that the other goods in the registration should be cancelled from the date of filing of the application for revocation (Section 46(1)(b)).

Even though Section 46(1)(a) had been quoted as a ground of revocation all the evidence and discussion had been in relation to the five year period prior to the filing of the application. As the registration dated from 1951 the Hearing Officer did not feel able to consider the question of non-use for the five year period following registration.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o02703.html