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 >> RUBY BRAND R (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2004] UKIntelP o20304 (30 April 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o20304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o20304
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
RUBY BRAND R (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2004] UKIntelP o20304 (30 April 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o20304
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/203/04
- Decision date
- 30 April 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
- Mark
- RUBY BRAND R
- Classes
- 30
- Applicant for Revocation
- East End Foods Plc
- Registered Proprietor
- Tradelink (London) Limited
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(b)
Result
Section 46(1)(b) - Hearing Officer's decision set aside and Proceedings remitted to the Registry.
Points Of Interest
- 1. This case highlights the importance of providing evidence and information in the correct format.
- 2. See also BL O/042/04
- 3. Fresh decision issued on 18 April 2005 (BL O/101/05). Application allowed in respect of all goods other than saffron.
Summary
This was an appeal by the registered proprietor of the Hearing Officer's decision of 10 February 2004 in which he allowed an application for revocation and ordered the removal of the registered proprietor's mark from the Register of Trade Marks on the basis that the mark in suit had not been used during the relevant five year period.
After scrutiny of the papers on file and after hearing the parties the Appointed Person decided that there had been an irregularity in procedure. This arose because the registered proprietor had provided sample packs of goods sold and the Appointed Person thought that such packs might have contained such information as batch numbers and use – before dates. However, after discussion with the Registry, the samples were withdrawn and replaced with documents which lacked such information. The omitted information was not before the Hearing Officer when he made his decision and the Appointed Person speculated that if he had been aware of it he might have reached a different decision.
In the circumstances the Appointed Person decided to set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and to remit the proceedings to the Registry for further consideration and the issuing of directions. There was no criticism of the Hearing Officer's decision which had been made on the papers before him.
Because no fault lay with the applicant for revocation the Appointed Person awarded costs from the normal scale.