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 >> BACTIGUARD (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o09507 (2 April 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o09507.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o09507, [2007] UKIntelP o9507
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BACTIGUARD (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o09507 (2 April 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o09507
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/095/07
- Decision date
- 2 April 2007
- Hearing officer
- Dr L Cullen
- Mark
- BACTIGUARD
- Classes
- 01, 05, 10
- Registered Proprietor
- Trade Mark Ad Tech Holdings Limited
- Applicants for Revocation
- Fenchurch Environmental Group Limited
- Application for Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a)
Result
Application for revocation, Section 46(1)(a): Successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Pre-existing agreement; could not prevent revocation action because “the restraint sought would extend beyond any legitimate interest of the registered proprietor at the time that the delimitation agreement was entered into”.
- 2. See also BL O/300/04 and BL O/236/05.
Summary
As a result of previous decisions in the Registry (see BL O/300/04) and by the Appointed Person (see BL O/236/05). This matter had been remitted to the Registry for a decision on the substantive matters. The Hearing Officer had to decide on two issues (i) should a pre-existing agreement between the parties prevent this revocation action from proceeding and (ii) should the revocation action succeed on the basis of the evidence provided? The Hearing Officer decided, on the first point, that a restraint of the revocation action “would extend beyond any legitimate interest of the registered proprietor at the time that the delimitation agreement was entered into ……” On the second point the Hearing Officer concluded from the evidence that the registered proprietor had not been able to show genuine use of the mark during the relevant period.