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 >> IDEAL HOME (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o11305 (25 April 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o11305.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o11305
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IDEAL HOME (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o11305 (25 April 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o11305
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/113/05
- Decision date
- 25 April 2005
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- IDEAL HOME
- Classes
- 16
- Applicant for Revocation
- Ideal Home Limited
- Registered Proprietor
- IPC Media Limited
- Revocation
- Sections 46(1)(a) & (b) & Section 46(5)
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b): - Revocation request refused.
Section 46(5): - Request to restrict specification refused.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See also BL O/112/05 and BL O/114/05
Summary
The mark in suit was registered as of 8 April 1988 in Class 16 in respect of "Printed publications and periodicals". The applicant for revocation filed its application on 18 December 2005 claiming non-use of the mark or in the alternative that the mark had only been used in relation to magazines relating to interior decoration for homes. Thus the registration should be restricted to such goods.
The proprietor filed details of extensive use of the mark IDEAL HOME and claimed that it was a market leader in its sector. Evidence was also filed to show that these magazines covered a range of topics such as cooking, gardening, travel, products for the home and other matters. Additionally, the mark was widely used on publicity material, in advertising and in merchandising; and also on books which deal with entertaining with an emphasis on cooking and kitchen planning.
The Hearing Officer had no difficulty in deciding that there had been genuine use of the mark in suit during the relevant five year periods quoted by the applicant. He also considered that in view of the widespread use of the mark and the range of topics covered that it would not be appropriate to restrict the specification as requested by the applicant. Application for revocation refused.