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 >> NAUGHTY NAILS (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o04606 (13 February 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o04606.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o04606, [2006] UKIntelP o4606 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o04606
Result
Section 46: - Revocation action successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
An application for revocation was filed on 26 July 2004 which claimed that there had been no use of the mark in suit in the five year period from 30 August 1997 to 30 August 2002. The registered proprietor admitted that there had been no use of the mark in suit during the relevant period but claimed that the mark had been used and was in use currently.
Evidence of use of the mark in suit was filed by a Director of Liberty Cosmetics Ltd who, it later transpired, owned the share capital of the registered proprietor and its intellectual property. The Hearing Officer accepted that any use which had taken place had been with the consent of the proprietor. The evidence of use filed was not well documented but it showed that the mark had been advertised at the Birmingham International Spring Fair in February 2004 and the sale of goods commenced at about this time. However, the applicant had made contact in October 2002 requesting cancellation or consent to the registration of its mark. Following correspondence the applicant warned in February 2004 that it would seek revocation of the Register on the basis of non-use. As this date was before the proprietor commenced or re-commenced to use its mark it could not therefore utilise the provisions of Section 46(3) to retain the registration. Revocation allowed