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 o34806 (7 December 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o34806.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o34806
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BIBA (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o34806 (7 December 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o34806
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/348/06
- Decision date
- 7 December 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- BIBA
- Classes
- 18
- 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 and BL O/346/06 to BL O/347/06 and BL O/349/06 to BL O/352/06
Summary
The specification of the mark in suit covers “Leather, imitation leather and articles included in class 18 made from these materials; cases and bags, all included in Class 18; articles of luggage, knapsacks, rucksacks, purses (not of precious metal or coated therewith), pocket wallets, umbrellas, parasols, walking sticks, rattan walking canes, whips, harness straps made of leather; leads made of leather and collars, all for animals; parts and fittings included in class 18 for all the aforesaid goods.”
The mark in suit dates back to the 1960’s and was first adopted by a Ms Barbara Hulanicki. The mark was acquired by the registered proprietor in 1975 and use after than dated 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 the mark in respect of bags and handbags and he ordered that the specification of the mark in suit be restricted to read “bags and handbags”.