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 >> WOODBURY ESTATES (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2004] UKIntelP o14804 (26 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o14804.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o14804 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o14804
Result
Section 47(1) based on Section 3(6) - Invalidity section successful Section 47(2)(b) based on Section 5(4)(a) - Invalidity action failed
Section 47(2)(b) based on Section 5(4)(a) - Invalidity action failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicant for invalidation claimed that the mark in suit incorporated its mark WOODBURY and that the addition of the non-distinctive word ESTATES did not affect the likelihood of confusion in the marketplace, based on its earlier use of the mark WOODBURY. The applicant also claimed that it had had a commercial relationship involving the marketing of wines with an associated company of the registered proprietor. Thus the registered proprietor must have been aware of the applicant’s mark when the mark in suit was applied for. This being the case the application was made in bad faith.
The Registrar sent a copy of the application for invalidity to the registered proprietor but there was no response and the registered proprietor did not defend its registration.
The applicant filed evidence to show that it had marketed wine through a firm called California Direct Ltd (CDL) prior to the application for the mark in suit on 17 October 2002 by Bulk Brokers International (BBI). Sales were not extensive and the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the applicant had acquired a reputation and goodwill in the mark WOODBURY in relation to wine at the relevant date. The applicant also showed that a Mr Jason Korman was a director of both CDL and BBI during the applicant’s trading relationship with CDL.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer decided that the applicant must fail on this ground because of a lack of reputation. However, he decided that the applicant was successful under Section 3(6) because it had established a prima facie case of bad faith and there was no defence by the registered proprietor.
