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 >> VODKA O2 RUSH VODKA O2 PREMIUM SPARKLING VODKA (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2008] UKIntelP o09608 (2 April 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o09608.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o9608, [2008] UKIntelP o09608

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


VODKA O2 RUSH VODKA O2 PREMIUM SPARKLING VODKA (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2008] UKIntelP o09608 (2 April 2008)

For the whole decision click here: o09608

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/096/08
Decision date
2 April 2008
Hearing officer
Ms A Michaels
Mark
VODKA O2 RUSH VODKA O2 PREMIUM SPARKLING VODKA
Classes
33
Applicant for Invalidity
O2 Limited
Registered Proprietor
Philip Maitland
Invalidity
1. Section 47(2) based on Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a) 2. Appeal re extension of time request and refusal to set aside earlier decision

Result

Appeal to the Appointed Person: Appeal dismissed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

This was an appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 12 July 2007 (BL O/194/07).

Generally the Appointed Person found that the Hearing Officer had made no error in law; that his reasoning was sound and he upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision.

As regards the individual matters the registered proprietor’s claim to have filed a change of address form was dismissed because the evidence and arguments in support of this claim were considered unsatisfactory by the Appointed Person.

The extension of time request was also dismissed as the Appointed Person considered that the Hearing Officer had taken all the relevant matters into consideration. In particular he upheld the Hearing Officer’s view that there was no responsibility on the Registrar to ensure that the address for service entry in the register was updated and there was no onus on the Register to try and trace a registered proprietor who did not respond when advised of proceedings against its mark.

In relation to the irregularity of proceedings in that the Registrar had not advised the registered proprietor of his right to be heard in relation to the application for invalidity the Appointed Person accepted that as previous documents sent to the incorrect address for service had not reached the registered proprietor it was reasonable to conclude that other correspondence sent out at a later date would also not reach the registered proprietor. The Hearing Officer’s decision to refuse to re-open proceedings upheld.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o09608.html