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 >> ACROPRINT (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o12702 (19 March 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o12702.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o12702
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ACROPRINT (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o12702 (19 March 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o12702
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/127/02
- Decision date
- 19 March 2002
- Hearing officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- ACROPRINT
- Classes
- 09
- Registered Proprietor
- Time Systems (UK) Limited
- Applicants for Declaration of Invalidity
- Acroprint Time Recorder Company Incorporated
- Application for Invalidation
- Sections 47(1) (3(6)); 47(2) (5(4)(a))* *other grounds were cited under Sections 3 and 46(1)(d) and Article 8(3) of Council Reg 40/94 but the Hearing Officer dismissed these since in his view they could not be supported.
Result
Application for declaration of invalidity Section 47 - Failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Refusal of late filed evidence
- 2. Bad faith
- 3. Costs in respect of ‘hopeless’ grounds
Summary
The applicants based their case on their ownership of the mark; the registered proprietors had been sole distributors of their products in the UK, they said. The Hearing Officer found, under Section 3(6) that whilst there was evidence that consent to the registration had been sought there was no evidence that it had been positively withheld. The allegation of bad faith could not be established, therefore. He then turned to the applicants’ case under Section 5(4)(a). A careful analysis of the evidence, however, led him to the view that the applicants had not demonstrated that any goodwill created was attached to them.
The application for invalidation failed on all grounds. He increased, slightly, the award of costs in view of the number of (fairly hopeless) grounds pleaded.