For the whole decision click here: o10304
Result
Application for declaration of invalidity Section 27(2)(b) (citing Section 5(4)(a)) granted.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The registered proprietors did not file a counterstatement; the statutory presumption of validity (Section 72) however prevented removal in the absence of a prima facie case in support of the application.
The applicant filed evidence of use of the mark since 1988. As this evidence had not been challenged the Hearing Officer accepted that the applicant had established goodwill in the sign FOG OFF in relation to the business of supplying chemical preparation in the form of anti-condensation products. The registered proprietors had an identical mark registered in respect of chemicals used in industry, science and photography. The Hearing Officer concluded that a common field of activity existed and, to the extent that the registered proprietors’ specification was wider than the applicant’s current trade, it was in a closely related area for the goods at issue.
Damage could be reasonably inferred and the application succeeded accordingly.