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 >> ALTOS (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o07003 (14 March 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o07003.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o07003, [2003] UKIntelP o7003 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o07003
Result
Section 46(1)(b): - Partial revocation allowed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants first requested full revocation but after the initial evidence rounds this claim was reduced to partial revocation in respect of goods other than “servers and related hardware”.
The registered proprietors filed evidence of use and claimed to have used their mark in respect of all of their goods registered in Class 9. However, the main goods of interest were servers and the Hearing Officer had to decide how these goods should be described, whether they were within the specification as registered and what other associated goods (if any) the registered proprietors should be allowed to retain in their registration.
As to the first point the Hearing Officer decided that the term microcomputers embraces servers and, therefore servers were included within the registered proprietors specification.
One of the areas of contention was in relation to software since software is incorporated into servers and different servers might use different software for different purposes. In the event the Hearing Officer decided that such usage did not entitle the registered proprietors to retain software in their specification. He did however, allow the retention of “magnetic discs, disc drives and electrical control apparatus, input, output and printout apparatus, all for servers being microcomputers” in addition to “servers being microcomputers”.
The matter of discretion was also raised particularly in relation to the retention of computer programmes but the Hearing Officer indicated that even if he had such power, which he doubted, he would not be prepared to exercise it in favour of the registered proprietors, given the facts of this particular case.
