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 >> DONETTE DONETTES (Series) (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2006] UKIntelP o13106 (25 May 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o13106.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o13106 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o13106
Result
Application for invalidation, Section 47 (citing Section 3(6)): failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
Before dealing with the substantive matter under Section 3(6), the Hearing Officer had to address two issues which arose from the fact that the registration in suit had already been removed from the register as a result of a revocation action which had been determined some 12 months earlier and which had been launched by the same applicant at the same time as the present application. Two questions therefore arose:- i) was it open to the Hearing Officer to declare a mark invalid when it had already been removed from the register and ii) was the continuation of invalidation proceedings against a mark already removed from the register an abuse of process?
After some deliberation, and without making a wider determination on the tribunal’s power to hear an action on a mark already revoked, the Hearing Officer thought it right to allow the applicant to bring this particular action to a conclusion. However, he referred to his ‘lingering concern’ as to how such a course sat with the a ‘posteriori’ provisions in the CTM Regulations.
Turning to the matter under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer eventually concluded that the applicant’s case did not establish a clear instance of bad faith on the part of the registered proprietor.
