Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/586/01

Decision date

7 November 2001

Hearing officer

Mr M Knight

Mark

CHEQUE BLEU

Classes

36

Applicant for Revocation

CB Richard Ellis Inc

Registered Proprietor

Groupment Carte Bleu

Revocation

Request for summary judgement

Result

Request for summary judgement in revocation proceedings : Application for revocation allowed.

Points Of Interest

• 1. In revocation proceedings the registered proprietors must show use of their mark when filing their counterstatement. They may supplement that use later in the proceedings but the primary use must be shown at the outset. (However, see also Appointed Person decision BL O/018/02).
• 2. See also Hearing Officer’s decision dated 17 January 2002 (BL 0/032/02) re costs.

Summary

Applications for revocation of the above marks were filed on 17 January 2001 and 9 February 2001. The papers were forwarded to the registered proprietor who was allowed a period of three months to file evidence of use of his marks or reasons for non use of his marks.

Within the period allowed the registered proprietor filed counterstatements and a witness statement by his trade mark attorney. This statement indicated that the trade mark attorney had been directed to the registered proprietors Internet web site and he attached as an exhibit pages of information from that web site. The registered proprietors are a French Company and some of the information was in French and some in English. The information indicated that there had been use of the mark CB CARTE BLEUE in relation to some activities within France; some use on press releases and some in relation to sponsorship of the French Olympic team, and membership of a group of companies including UK banks such as Barclays and Lloyds TSB. There was no information as to whether or not any of this use had lead to the marks at issue appearing in UK publications or being used in relation to services within the UK. Nor was there any information indicating that the web site had received enquiries of hits from UK sources.

The Hearing Officer noted that the registered proprietors had filed their counterstatements within time and that they had claimed use of two of their marks and use of a mark similar to the third mark. He noted, however, that they had filed no evidence relating to use of any of their marks within the relevant five year period and such evidence as had been filed did not in fact show conclusively that there had been any use of their marks within the UK at any time.

As a consequence the Hearing Officer decided, after considering the matter of discretion, that he must deem the registered proprietors opposition to the applications for revocation as withdrawn. Applications for revocation allowed.