 |
[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 >> LITTLE ME (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2004] UKIntelP o13104 (11 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o13104.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o13104 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o13104
Result
Evidence of use sufficient ("if only just") to allow proceedings to continue.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The issue before the Hearing Officer was whether evidence of use filed by the registered proprietor was sufficient to allow the proceedings to continue. Following various exchanges concerning the correct address for service in respect of these three registrations, a TM8, statement of case, witness statement and an exhibit was filed on behalf of the registered proprietor. The Registry gave as its preliminary view that the witness statement and exhibit did not discharge the onus on the registered proprietor to show evidence of use. A hearing was sought.
In essence, the registered proprietor's case was that in view of the delays which had occurred and other difficulties of timing this was the best they could come up with at the time, but it had established a prima facie case which could be expanded at later stages in the evidence procedure.
The applicant for revocation disagreed, pointing to the fact that their own researches, prior to the filing of the application, had shown no use. They also pointed to the fact that the exhibits were photocopies, about which there were doubts.
The Hearing Officer, having rehearsed the various requirements and relevant authorities concerning the filing of evidence of use concluded, in the result, that the evidence filed was sufficient, "if only just", to allow the proceedings to continue. Had this not been so the Hearing Officer would in any event have exercised the Registrar’s discretion under Rule 31(3), in view of the reasons given for the sparseness of the evidence.