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 >> GLO (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o18006 (27 June 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o18006.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o18006 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o18006
Result
Section 46(1)(a)
Points Of Interest
Summary
The application for revocation was filed on 24 May and revocation was sought from 31 March 2005.
The registered proprietor stated in his counterstatement that he had started the GLO project and found the mark in suit standing in the way of his own application and had purchased it in July 2003. He was not aware if the previous proprietor had used the mark and was investigating. As regards his ownership he was experiencing technical difficulties in making the main products. In the event the registered proprietor filed no evidence of use of his mark.
The applicant filed evidence of investigations carried out which showed there had been no use of the mark in suit. Contact had been made with the registered proprietor in May 2004 when an effort was made to purchase the mark in suit and there had been no mention of technical difficulties.
The Hearing Officer accepted that there had been no use of the mark in suit and went on to consider whether “technical difficulties” constituted proper reasons for non-use. The Hearing Officer reviewed the papers before him and concluded that a mere statement of “technical difficulties” was totally insufficient to reach a finding that there were proper reasons for non-use. There was no explanation about the product envisaged or the nature of the difficulties faced. Revocation allowed.
