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 Geometric device (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o35006 (7 December 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o35006.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o35006
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BIBA Geometric device (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2006] UKIntelP o35006 (7 December 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o35006
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/350/06
- Decision date
- 7 December 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- BIBA & Geometric device
- Classes
- 14
- Applicant for Revocation
- BIBA + Pariscop Daud GmbH
- Registered Proprietor
- Hachel International Foundation
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a) & (b)
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b): Revocation allowed.
Points Of Interest
- See also cases BL O/344/06, BL O/346/06 to BL O/349/06 and BL O/351/06 to BL O/352/06
Summary
The specification of the mark in suit covers:
Articles included in Class 14 made of precious metal or coated therewith, jewellery; watches and clocks, and parts and fitting for watches and clocks.
Exclusive rights in the BIBA element of the mark are disclaimed.
The BIBA element of the mark in suit dates back to the 1960’s and was first adopted by a Ms Barbara Hulanicki. The BIPA 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 use of a mark consisting of the word BIBA with an art deco swirl device in respect of items of jewellery during the relevant five year period. However, as the device contained in the mark in suit is very different from the art deco swirl device appearing in the mark as used, the Hearing Officer concluded that there had been no use of the mark in suit and the use shown of a different mark did not protect the registration. Revocation allowed.