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 >> GRANIT (Trade Mark: Revocation) [1998] UKIntelP o02998 (27 February 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o02998.html Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o02998, [1998] UKIntelP o2998 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02998
Result
Sections 46(1)(a) & (b) - Revocation successful.
Section 46(2) - Revocation successful.
Discretion - No exercise of discretion in favour of the Registered Proprietor.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The registered proprietor filed details of use of the mark GRANITE as distinct from the registered mark GRANIT and claimed that as the two marks were so similar the use of the mark GRANITE equates to use of the registered mark. The applicants for revocation disputed that the use of GRANITE equated to use of the mark GRANIT and filed evidence which cast some doubt on the accuracy of the proprietor’s evidence. These doubts were further exposed during Mr Saba’s cross-examination at the hearing.
Under Sections 46(1)(a) and (b) and 46(2) the Hearing Officer reviewed the evidence before him and concluded that there had been no use of the registered mark during the relevant period. Assuming there had been use of the mark GRANITE, which the Hearing Officer doubted, he did not accept that such use would constitute use of the registered mark GRANIT. The registered mark is an invented word whereas the word GRANITE is a dictionary word with its own meaning. Thus the addition of the letter E not only serves to make the two marks visually different but it changes the meaning of the mark in the sense that it gives it a meaning which it did not previously have. The applicant thus succeeded on both grounds.
The Hearing Officer went on to consider the matter of discretion but decided that as no significant reasons had been provided to support a request, he declined to exercise my discretion.
