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 >> THAI CERAMICS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o11702 (14 March 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o11702.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o11702

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


THAI CERAMICS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o11702 (14 March 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o11702

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/117/02
Decision date
14 March 2002
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
THAI CERAMICS
Classes
19
Registered Proprietor
Cairnford Ceramics Limited
Applicants for Declaration of Invalidity
Thai Mosaic & Ceramics Limited
Application for Invalidation
Section 47(1) (Section 3(6))* *Section 47(2)(b) (Section 5(4)) was also cited but in view of the outcome under 47(1) the Hearing Officer made no formal finding on that point.

Result

Application for invalidation - Successful.

Section 47(1) - Successful.

(Section 3(6)) - Successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applicant alleged that certain designs and the trade mark in suit had been registered by the registered proprietor without authority from them, the true owners. They had recovered possession of the designs by assignment but their request for an assignment of the trade mark had been ignored. The registered proprietors stated, inter alia, that they had not ignored the request for an assignment of the mark; the applicants had failed to attend a meeting at which the matter was to be discussed, they said.

The Hearing Officer reviewed the evidence and was satisfied that the applicants had used the mark during a period prior to the date of the application for registration. He noted that there had been a business relationship between the parties, and the registered proprietors had offered no explanation as to how they considered they could legitimately apply for the precise mark that they knew to be in use by the applicants.

He concluded that the claim of bad faith had been made out.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o11702.html