Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> MINERVA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [1999] UKIntelP o40299 (15 November 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o40299.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o40299
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MINERVA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [1999] UKIntelP o40299 (15 November 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o40299
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/402/99
- Decision date
- 15 November 1999
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- MINERVA
- Classes
- 16
- Registered Proprietor
- Pomaco Ltd
- Applicant for Revocation & Invalidity
- Reed Consumer Books Ltd
- Revocation
- Sections 46(1)(a), 46(1)(b) and 47(2)(b) with reference to 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 46 - Revocation failed
Section 47 - Revocation failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. Printed matter - what is covered by this term
- 2. Books - what constitutes a book
- 3. See also O/401/99
- 4. The applicants for Revocation appealed this decision to the High Court. See decision dated 22 February 2000 [2000] FSR 734. In that decision Mr Justice Jacob allowed the appeal and granted partial revocation.
Summary
Discussion as to whether or not the term "printed matter" provided cover for "books". Registered Proprietor's had some use of their mark in relation to paper and cardboard articles, some of which were printed, and produced in book format. Applicants claimed that such items were stationery items and not books. Having considered the matter the Hearing Officer concluded that the term "printed matter" covered a wide range of books such as exercise books, order books etc; also in this case a booklet containing a collection of poems. Use held to be genuine even though no sales figures provided.
With regard to "passing off" which was the ground at issue under 47(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer concluded that the applicants had a goodwill in the business of producing goods under the mark MINERVA which was protectable at the relevant date. However, he found no misrepresentation by the Registered Proprietors or likely damage to the applicants. Revocation therefore failed.