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!



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 >> THE END (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2000] UKIntelP o45000 (1 December 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o45000.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o45000

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


THE END (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2000] UKIntelP o45000 (1 December 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o45000

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/450/00
Decision date
1 December 2000
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
THE END
Classes
25
Registered Proprietor
Kim Carl Meller
Applicant for Declaration of Invalidity
Standquick Limited (T/A The End)
Invalidity
Section 47(1) based on Section 3(6) and Section 47(2)(b) based on Section 5(4)

Result

Section 47(1) - Invalidity partially successful

Section 47(2) - Invalidity failed

Points Of Interest

Summary

The registered mark had a specification covering "Footwear and clothing" but the proprietor indicated at an early stage in the proceedings that he was prepared to restrict his registration to "Footwear" if this would settle the matter. However, the applicants continued with their application.

With regard to Section 5(4) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer accepted that the applicants had some modest use of the marks THE END and THE END (in logo form) at the relevant date but only in respect of items of clothing such as shirts, leggings, bodices, blouses etc. The Hearing Officer decided that such goods were not similar to footwear and concluded that if the registered proprietor restricted his specification to such goods, his marks could remain on the register.

Under Section 3(6) the applicants had merely made an assertion that the registered proprietor must have known about their business and mark when he applied to register his mark. The Hearing Officer found such an assertion to be totally insufficient to justify a finding of "bad faith".



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o45000.html