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 >> REMUS (stylised) (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2008] UKIntelP o06108 (28 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o06108.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o6108, [2008] UKIntelP o06108 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o06108
Result
Section 46(1)(b): Appeal allowed. Application for revocation refused.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 8 June 2007 (BL O/162/07) the Hearing Officer allowed the application for revocation. The registered proprietor appealed to the Appointed Person
On appeal the registered proprietor challenged the Hearing Officer’s conclusion as to the weight to be given to the evidence of use provided; the variations of use shown and the descriptive and non-distinctive nature of the word UOMO (Italian) for man.
The registered proprietor had provided significant evidence of use of marks incorporating the mark in suit and this evidence was unchallenged. In addition, while in all cases the mark consisted of the words REMUS UOMO, in some instances UOMO was shown with other matter or separated from the REMUS element. It was also claimed that whether or not UOMO would be recognised as a descriptive word it would be deemed as unregistrble by the Registrar and/or the courts.
Having reviewed the evidence before the Hearing Officer the Appointed Person accepted that there was some merit in the registered proprietor’s submissions. The proprietor’s evidence was unchallenged; the examples of use shown indicated that in many instances the mark in suit was the dominant element and there was no doubt that UOMO has descriptive connotations. The Appointed Person went on to conclude that the Hearing Officer had been in error in allowing the rectification and he went on to reverse that decision. In his view there had been use of the mark in suit with elements which did not affect its distinctive character.
