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 >> STRAIGHT EIGHT (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2004] UKIntelP o09404 (31 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o09404.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o9404, [2004] UKIntelP o09404
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
STRAIGHT EIGHT (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2004] UKIntelP o09404 (31 March 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o09404
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/094/04
- Decision date
- 31 March 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- STRAIGHT EIGHT
- Classes
- 33
- Applicant for Revocation
- Stichting Lodestar
- Registered Proprietor
- Brothers Drinks Co Limited
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(b)
Result
Section 46(1)(b) - Application essentially successful. Specification of mark in suit reduced to 'perry'.
Points Of Interest
- 1. A very unusual trading arrangement and caused the Hearing Officer to think carefully before deciding that use was genuine.
Summary
The mark in suit was applied for on 24 May 1996 and registered on 14 February 1997. The application for revocation was made on 20 May 2002 and the Hearing Officer concluded from the papers before him that the relevant five year period ran from 20 May 1997 to 19 May 2002.
The registered proprietors admitted that their mark had only been used in respect of "Perry". The product was first launched in 1993 but was not very successful from a commercial standpoint and the company did not proceed with this product by way of general sales. However, the Straight Eight and numeral 8 perry continued to be sold each year at the Glastonbury festival which extends over three days. Sales were said to be of the order of £20,000 per annum. The registered mark was advertised on price lists; an illustrated advertisement sign and on a promotional clock but the perry itself was sold in paper/plastic cups and there was no direct use of the mark in association with the goods.
The Hearing Officer carefully considered this rather strange trading arrangement and concluded that there was genuine use of the mark in suit in relation to 'perr'. The specification of the registered mark was restricted to 'perry' and the applicants awarded costs.
The registered proprietors had argued that as all alcoholic goods were similar goods, they should be allowed to retain their existing specification of ‘alcoholic beverages’. The Hearing Officer indicated that the test envisaged by the registered proprietors was not the proper test and their request to retain a wide specification was unrealistic.