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 >> PINK LADY (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o22203 (7 August 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o22203.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o22203

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


PINK LADY (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o22203 (7 August 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o22203

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/222/03
Decision date
7 August 2003
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
PINK LADY
Classes
33
Applicant for Revocation
Australian Apple & Pear Growers Association Inc.
Registered Proprietor
Matthew Clark Brands Limited
Revocation
Section 46(1)

Result

Section 46(1): - Applicants for revocation successful in respect of revised claim.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The above mark was registered for “wines and spirits” and the initial request was that the mark be revoked in its entirety. Following the filing of the registered proprietor’s counterstatement and their evidence, the applicants amended their statement of case to restrict the scope of their application to “all goods other than wines made from pears”.

In their evidence claiming use of their mark on “wines made from pears” the registered proprietor had recognised that the revocation should be successful in relation to the “spirits” element of their specification, the inference being that they should be allowed to retain a specification for wines at large.

The Hearing Officer considered the nature of the applicants use and concluded that wines made from fruit are very different from wines made from grapes. He thus considered that the specification should be revoked for all goods other than “wines made from pears”.

As regards costs the registered proprietor asked for an award in their favour because they claimed the applicants evidence of non-use was flawed (not submitted to the Registrar) and because the applicants had made their application without consultation or seeking their co-operation. The Hearing Officer, however, awarded costs to the applicants as they had been successful. He was not aware of the evidence referred to by the proprietor and noted that they had not sought to simplify matters by surrendering that part of their specification in respect of which there had been no use.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o22203.html