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 >> POLICE (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o39403 (18 December 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o39403.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o39403 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o39403
Result
Appeal allowed; total revocation rescinded.
Points Of Interest
Summary
At first instance (see BL O/165/03) the Hearing Officer had found the application for revocation successful. The registered proprietor appealed to the Appointed Person.
The registered proprietor also requested an adjournment of the appeal hearing, already fixed, as she was abroad and wished to attend in person. The Appointed Person, however, considered that an adjournment was not necessary and was not justified.
The principal grounds of appeal were that the Hearing Officer had misdirected himself in law, a) in holding that the size of the undertaking was irrelevant and b) in holding that in some markets use of the mark may have to be quantitatively significant for it to be deemed genuine.
In the result; having reviewed the present state of the law and the facts in this case, the Appointed Person concluded that the Hearing Officer had indeed misdirected himself on these two points. The use shown had been genuine use, he decided. He therefore allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the order for total revocation. He did, however, order the partial revocation set out in the Hearing Officer’s alternative finding.
The costs order was also set aide, and no costs were awarded in respect of the appeal.
