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) [2004] UKIntelP o24304 (6 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o24304.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o24304 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o24304
Result
Section 46(1)(b) Appeal to the Appointed Person - Appeal dismissed
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 14 March 2003 (BL O/070/03) the Hearing Officer had considered a modified request for partial revocation and granted the relief sought, albeit using different wording in setting down a new specification for the registered mark.
On appeal the registered proprietor (Acer) claimed that the Hearing Officer had granted wider relief than sought by the applicant (Altus) and that in any event Altus submitted that it should be allowed to retain "services being computer programmes".
The Appointed Person considered the Hearing Officer’s decision in detail and also the papers which had been filed in the proceedings. As to the first point the Appointed Person accepted that the modified request for revocation was somewhat ambiguous but both parties appeared to be aware of what was at stake and he therefore did not believe that the Hearing Officer had granted relief in excess of that sought by Acer.
As regards the second point, this was a matter of fact and there was no evidence filed which showed that Altus had used their mark ALTOS in relation to the sale of computer software. The request to retain "servers being computer programmes" could not, therefore, be sustained. Appeal dismissed.
