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 >> THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S MONTH (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2008] UKIntelP o03008 (5 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o03008.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o3008, [2008] UKIntelP o03008 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o03008
Result
Section 47 based on Section 3(6): Invalidation failed. Section 47 based on Section 5(4)(a): Invalidation failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The two parties to these proceedings had been in competition with each other in the publishing field when a truce was called and a proposal was made to collaborate as regards the publishing of a magazine with the title of the mark in suit. Discussions involved a draft agreement but there is no confirmation that it was ever signed by the two parties even though at least one issue of the magazine was published by the proposed partnership.
The nub of this dispute involves disagreement about who designed the logo of the mark in suit and the fact that the registered proprietor applied for registration without, apparently, consulting the applicant for invalidation. One other fact came to light from the evidence and this was that the registered proprietor made clear on her application that she was merely applying for the design of the logo and not of the words of the mark in suit. This was overlooked by the Registrar at application stage and the Register does not carry an appropriately worded limitation. The Hearing Officer observed that this might impact on the registrability of the mark in suit but it was not a matter which was before him in these proceedings.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer decided, in the absence of rebuttal evidence from the applicant, that he would accept the registered proprietor’s claims that she had been essentially responsible for designing the logo and he dismissed this ground of the invalidation.
As regards the Section 3(6) ground the Hearing Officer noted that he would have found in favour of the applicant if the application had been for the words of the mark in suit but as the application had only been for the logo, and he had accepted that the registered proprietor had designed the logo, then there could be no bad faith in making the application. This ground also dismissed.
