 |
[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 >> FIRECRAFT (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2008] UKIntelP o31008 (18 November 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o31008.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o31008 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o31008
Result
Section 47(2)(b) based on 5(4)(a): Application for invalidation allowed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The mark in suit was registered as of 29 February 2000 and the application for invalidation was filed on 16 March 2007.
The applicant filed evidence in support of its application. It claimed to have commenced use of its FIRECRAFT mark in 1991 in relation to its manufacture of stone fireplaces. By early 2000 the applicant had 96 stockists for FIRECRAFT fireplaces through the UK and an annual turnover of some £350,000. Promotion of the mark was mainly by way of advertisements in small local and/or specialised magazines.
The registered proprietor’s evidence showed that it was a much more substantial business through a limited number of large outlets. Sales increased from just over £500k in 2001 to over £1.5m in 2007. Promotion of its mark was limited in view of its marketing strategy.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer decided that the applicant had established passing-off rights when the registered proprietor applied to register its mark in February 2000. It followed that the applicant was successful with its application for invalidation.
In reaching his decision the Hearing Officer accepted that the registered proprietor was not aware of the applicant’s use of the mark FIRECRAFT when it made its application to register its FIRECRAFT mark in February 2000.
It is also noteworthy that the evidence disclosed that two local independent local retailers used the mark FIRECRAFT concurrently with the applicant but this did not affect the Hearing Officer’s view that the name remained distinctive of the applicant’s stone fireplaces.