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 >> Isosceles CONSULTING INC VITALITY DRIVER (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o12205 (15 April 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o12205.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o12205
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Isosceles CONSULTING INC VITALITY DRIVER (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o12205 (15 April 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o12205
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/122/05
- Decision date
- 15 April 2005
- Hearing officer
- Professor Ruth Annand
- Mark
- Isosceles CONSULTING INC VITALITY DRIVER
- Classes
- 35
- Applicant for Revocation
- Field Fisher Waterhouse
- Registered Proprietor
- Marketing Triangle Inc
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a) & (b)
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b): - Appeal dismissed. Application for revocation successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See Hearing Officer's decision dated 8 November 2004 (BL O/332/04).
Summary
In his decision dated 8 November 2004 (BL O/332/04) the Hearing Officer found that the registered proprietor had used ISOSCELES CONSULTING INC without the VITALITY DRIVER and device element and BRAND VITALITY DRIVER and device without the words ISOSCELES CONSULTING INC. There was in fact no use of the mark as registered and the Hearing Officer decided that use of the various elements were in fact use of separate marks and did not constitute use of the mark as registered. The revocation action was therefore successful.
The Appointed Person carefully reviewed the evidence filed in the proceedings and took full account of the Hearing Officer's decision and reasoning. She confirmed the Hearing Officer's view that the use of different marks did not protect the registration and that the revocation action was therefore successful.
With regard to points made by the registered proprietor the Appointed Person confirmed that in revocation proceedings the onus is on the registered proprietor to file such evidence as it can to defend its registration. There is of course nothing to prevent a proprietor from seeking to register any mark it uses or proposes to use.