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 >> WALKERLAND (Trade Mark: Rectification) [2002] UKIntelP o28302 (19 July 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o28302.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o28302
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WALKERLAND (Trade Mark: Rectification) [2002] UKIntelP o28302 (19 July 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o28302
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/283/02
- Decision date
- 19 July 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- WALKERLAND
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant for Rectification
- Walkerland International Ltd
- Registered Proprietor
- Liaoning Light Industrial Products Import & Export Corporation
- Rectification
- Section 64
Result
Section 64 Assignment not properly authorised. Entry on the register deemed never to have been made.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See also BL O/284/02 and BL O/326/02.
Summary
The mark was applied for and registered in the name of Walker International Ltd (UK) the applicants. Subsequently the agents acting for the current registered proprietors Liaoning Light Industrial Products (LLI) filed a Form TM16 to effect the recordal of the transfer of the registrtion in suit to LLI from WIL.
In his evidence, a Mr Zhou on behalf of LLI claimed that WIL was set up by LLI and was effectively under its control. However, other evidence showed that WIL was a private limited company with two directors, a Mr Yu and a Mr Zhou with 99 shares owned by Mr Yu and one share owned by the Comapny Secretary Mr Simon Yu.
In his evidence Mr Zhou also claimed that LLI had authorised WIL to register the mark WALKERLAND and thus ownership resided with LLI. He also claimed to LLI’s sole representative in the UK; that he was Managing Director of WIL; that he had specific responsibility for supervising payments from customers and remitting money back to LLI in China and that he believed he was a 50% shareholder in WIL.
Mr Zhou and Mr Yu in their evidence made a number of unsubstantiated claims and the Hearing Officer accepted that there was a question of ownership of the mark to be decided. That, however, would be for decision in any invalidity action which might be launched. In these proceedings the Hearing Officer had to decide whether the Agents acting for WIL were authorised to file a Form TM16 to request the recordal of the registration to LLI. As matters stood Mr Zhou did not appear to have the necessary authority to authorise the transfer and the Hearing Officer concluded that the recordal of LLI as the proprietor was an error on the Register. He therefore ordered that the transfer should be deemed never to have been made and that WIL should be re-instated on the Register as registered proprietor.