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 >> WALKERLAND (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2004] UKIntelP o07104 (19 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o07104.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o7104, [2004] UKIntelP o07104

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


WALKERLAND (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2004] UKIntelP o07104 (19 March 2004)

For the whole decision click here: o07104

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/071/04
Decision date
19 March 2004
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
WALKERLAND
Classes
09, 25
Registered Proprietor
Joseph Yu
Applicants for a declaration of invalidity
Liaoning Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corporation
Application for Invalidation
Sections 47(1) (citing Sections 3(6)) & 47(2) (citing Section 5(4)(a)).

Result

Section 47(1) citing Section 3(6) - Application for invalidation successful.

Section 47(2) citing Section 5(4)(a) - No formal finding.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applicants claimed that the mark WALKERLAND was theirs and had been registered in the name of their UK distributors, Walkerland International Limited (WIL), and subsequently assigned to Mr Yu, the present registered proprietor. Walkerland International Limited knew that the mark was not theirs when they applied for registration.

There was some dispute over the evidence supporting the first use of the mark, in China, by the present applicants. The Hearing Officer, however, accepted that the applicants had used the mark since 1994, albeit in China.

After a lengthy and detailed examination of the evidence, the Hearing Officer eventually concluded that the mark belonged to the applicants and in seeking to have it registered and assigned to himself the registered proprietor had acted in bad faith.

The Action under Section 3(6) succeeded accordingly.

The Hearing Officer did not go on to make a formal finding under Section 5(4)(a), beyond remarking that the applicants would probably have succeeded under that Section also.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o07104.html