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 >> BIBA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o34706 (7 December 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o34706.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o34706
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BIBA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o34706 (7 December 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o34706
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/347/06
- Decision date
- 7 December 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- BIBA
- Classes
- 25
- Applicant for Revocation
- BIBA + Pariscop Daud GmbH
- Registered Proprietor
- Hachel International Foundation
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a) & (b)
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b): Application partially successful. Specification restricted to certain goods.
Points Of Interest
- See also cases BL O/344/06, BL O/346/06 and BL O/348/06 to BL O/352/06.
Summary
The specification of the mark in suit covers “Articles of clothing, none being for export to Africa”.
The mark in suit dates back to the 1960’s and was first coined by a Ms Barbara Hulanicki. The mark was acquired by the registered proprietor in 1975 and use after than date appears to have been intermittent. The application for revocation was filed on 20 January 2005 so the relevant five year period for showing use covers the period 21 January 2000 to 20 January 2005.
The registered proprietor filed evidence of use of the mark in suit but the use shown was not clear cut and the evidence was not well focused. However, the Hearing Officer accepted that there had been use of a mark incorporating the word BIBA (the word BIBA used with an art deco swirl device) in respect of a range of outer clothing and shoes for women and children. Taking account of the use of the mark BIBA & device and how it was referred to in newspaper advertisements and articles, the Hearing Officer accepted that the use shown was sufficient to protect the registration of BIBA in respect of the following goods; “Articles of outer clothing; shoes; all for woman and girls; but not including any such goods for export to Africa.” The Hearing Officer ordered that the specification of the mark in suit be restricted accordingly.