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 >> WILLIE WONKA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o17205 (23 June 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o17205.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o17205
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WILLIE WONKA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o17205 (23 June 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o17205
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/172/05
- Decision date
- 23 June 2005
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- WILLIE WONKA
- Classes
- 03
- Applicant for Revocation
- Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc
- Registered Proprietor
- Pedigree Dolls and Toys Limited
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a) & (b)
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b): - Application for revocation successful.
Points Of Interest
- This case is one of four revocation actions between the parties. An application involving the filing of additional evidence; discovery and striking-out in relation to the Class 16 registration lead to a request for adjournment. Request refused.
Summary
The mark in suit was applied for in Class 3 in November 1986 and placed on the Register in January 1989. The application for revocation was filed on 6 February 2003 and claimed that there had been no use of the registered mark during the five year period prior to the date of the application for revocation, and there were no proper reasons for non-use.
The registered proprietor filed evidence to show that some test sampling had been carried out involving children’s cosmetics being included with other goods in the nature of fun packs. No evidence was filed to show that such goods were actually marketed and indeed the registered proprietor did not claim actual use of the mark in suit. In any event the Hearing Officer decided that such preparations as may have been made did not constitute genuine use of the mark in suit.
The registered proprietor essentially depended on having "proper reasons for non-use" to defend the registration. Two reasons were given; first disruption caused by a move to new premises during which records had been destroyed or mislaid and secondly the fact that their supplier, a firm named Remus, had gone into receivership. As to the first reason the Hearing Officer noted that the transfer to new premises had occurred some thirteen years after registration and he did not consider it relevant. As regards the second reason he saw no reason why the goods in question could not have been sourced from other firms as they were not particularly specialised. Application for revocation succeeded with effect from 6 February 2003