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 >> OMEGA CONSTELLATION (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o28205 (17 October 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o28205.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o28205 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o28205
Result
Appeal partially successful. ..
Points Of Interest
Summary
At first instance (see BL O/017/05) the Hearing Officer had found that the use shown by the proprietor in relation to clocks was not use of the mark as registered and was not genuine use and he had reduced the specification to the ‘watches’ on which use had been shown. The proprietor appealed against this decision and also sought to adduce further evidence in respect of the appeal.
After due consideration the Appointed Person admitted the further evidence. She did not, however, disagree with the Hearing Officer’s finding that the use shown had not been use of the mark as registered and she therefore did not need to consider whether that use had been genuine.
She did, however, agree (per ANIMAL Trade Mark [2004] FSR 383) that "pernickety descriptions of goods and services are best avoided” and therefore she accepted the appellant’s request to have a specification for “horological instruments; parts and fittings therefor".
Since both sides had achieved partial success she decided that each should bear their own costs in respect of the appeal. In view of the lateness of the application, however, she ordered the appellants to pay costs to the respondents in respect of the further evidence on appeal