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 >> APILCO OVEN TO TABLEWARE (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o10505 (19 April 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o10505.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o10505

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


APILCO OVEN TO TABLEWARE (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o10505 (19 April 2005)

For the whole decision click here: o10505

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/105/05
Decision date
19 April 2005
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
APILCO OVEN TO TABLEWARE
Classes
21
Registered Proprietor
Edward Hockley Holdings Limited
Applicants for Revocation
Deshoulieres Societe Anonyme
Applicantion for Revocation
Section 46(1)(a) & 46(1)(b)

Result

Application for revocation Section 46(1), failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applicant for revocation was a manufacturer of the goods sold under the mark in suit. The mark in suit had not been used on the goods supplied by them for at least ten years. Hence, it was claimed, the mark had not been used. The registered proprietor, however had continued to use the mark on its invoices, albeit with some additional words on the shield device, "Domestic and Catering Porcelain". Was this use of the mark as registered?

It was a condition of registration that "the blank spaces in the mark shall, when the mark is in use, be occupied only by matter of a wholly descriptive and non-trade mark character".

The Hearing Officer found that as the additional words used on the mark fitted this description, the use of the mark had been used as registered.

With this point settled, the Hearing Officer went on to find that there had been use of the mark during the relevant periods.

The application for revocation failed accordingly.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o10505.html