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 >> ARNOLD (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2001] UKIntelP o05801 (2 February 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o05801.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o05801, [2001] UKIntelP o5801
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ARNOLD (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2001] UKIntelP o05801 (2 February 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o05801
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/058/01
- Decision date
- 2 February 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- ARNOLD
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant for Revocation
- Viacom International Inc
- Registered Proprietor
- Nottingham Group Limited
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(b)
Result
Section 46(1)(b) - Revocation successful
Points Of Interest
- 1. Use of a different mark as compared to that registered. This case differed from the ELLE case in that the mark as registered was used with an additional element. In the ELLE case the registration had consisted of the word ELLE and device with use only of the word. (Section 46(2)).
- 2. The registered proprietors appealed the decision to the Appointed Person. The Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision. See decision dated 17 October 2001 (BL 0/474/01).
Summary
The registered proprietors filed evidence which showed that the firm of EJArnold & Son Ltd had traded for over 100 years under the mark ARNOLD in relation to educational supplies. That firm had been acquired by the current owners in 1990 and since that time use was said to be in the form NES ARNOLD and ARNOLD (NES standing for Nottingham Educational supplies).
The Hearing Officer reviewed the registered proprietors evidence carefully and noted that use of the mark ARNOLD (solus) was very limited within the relevant period, and where it was used, it was not use in relation to any goods within the specification of the registration. With regard to use of the NES ARNOLD mark, he concluded that this was not use of the registered mark ARNOLD since it differed in elements which altered the distinctive character of the mark as registered.