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 >> OMEGA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o02803 (30 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o02803.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o02803, [2003] UKIntelP o2803
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
OMEGA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2003] UKIntelP o02803 (30 January 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o02803
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/028/03
- Decision date
- 30 January 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- OMEGA
- Classes
- 05, 09, 14, 16
- Applicant for Revocation
- Omega Engineering Inc
- Registered Proprietor
- Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd)
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a) & (b)
Result
Section 46(1)(a): - Revocation failed.
Section 46(1)(b): - Revocation successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. The Hearing Officer had to decide whether watches made of gold and/or incorporating precious stones were items of jewellery. He decided such watches were not items of jewellery.
- 2. The registered proprietors appealed to the Appointed Person. Appeal partially allowed in that registered proprietors allowed to retain a slightly wider specification.
Summary
The registered proprietors registration dated from 1927 and the original specification read "goods of precious metals and jewellery, and imitations of such goods and jewellery". In 1995 the registration was reclassified into Classes 5, 9, 14 and 16 with the Class 14 specification reading as originally filed. The proprietors accepted that there had been no use of their mark in respect of any goods in Classes 5, 9 and 16 and that revocation of the mark in these Classes should follow. However, they wished to retain in full their Class 14 specification.
The applicants for revocation had not attacked the Class 14 registration in full since they accepted that the registered proprietors sold watches under the mark OMEGA. They, however, sought revocation of all the other goods.
The registered proprietors filed evidence of use of their mark and sought to show that there had also been use on clocks. Their evidence, however, did not show use of the mark OMEGA in relation to such goods. The proprietors also sought to argue that as many of their watches incorporated precious stones and were made of gold, they would be referred to in the context of jewellery. The Hearing Officer did not agree. In his view watches were not jewellery and he therefore reduced the registered proprietors' Class 14 specification to "wrist watches and parts and fittings therefore; all being made of precious metals or imitations of precious metals". Revocation of other goods to be from the date of the application for revocation.