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 >> TEASERS TEASERS COSMETICS (series of 2 marks) (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o11807 (27 April 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o11807.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o11807
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TEASERS TEASERS COSMETICS (series of 2 marks) (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o11807 (27 April 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o11807
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/118/07
- Decision date
- 27 April 2007
- Hearing officer
- Dr L Cullen
- Mark
- TEASERS TEASERS COSMETICS (series of 2 marks)
- Classes
- 03
- Applicant for Revocation
- Unilever PLC
- Registered Proprietor
- Dale Mill Essential Oils Limited
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a) & (b)
Result
Section 46(1)(b): Application partially successful. Specification restricted.
Points Of Interest
- As described.
Summary
The mark in suit was registered in the name of Dale Mill Essential Oils Limited (DMEOL) when the application for revocation was filed on 7 December 2004. Subsequently it was assigned to James Alan Trainer on 29 April 2005 and he has defended the registration by claiming use of the mark in suit during the relevant five year period 3 December 1999 to 6 December 2004. An alternative five year period following registration was not pursued by the applicant.
The chain of title of the mark in suit was not straightforward as it passed through a number of companies before Mr Trainer was recorded on the Register of Trade Marks as the proprietor. Title was challenged by the applicant and the Hearing Officer examined the evidence and history of the mark in some detail before concluding that the assignment of the mark to Mr Trainer was acceptable. At all times Mr Trainer had been a director of the various companies involved and the Hearing Officer believed that he had controlled use of the mark in suit throughout its passing from DMEOL to himself.
Evidence of use of the mark in suit was filed by the proprietor. No use was shown of the mark TEASERS COSMETICS and use of TEASERS was shown in cursive script and also with an underlining device. The Hearing Officer accepted that the use shown was use of the mark as registered, for the purpose of defending the registration. Use of the mark in suit was not extensive and did not encompass many of the goods included in the specification. In the event the Hearing Officer restricted the specification to “nail preparations, bath or bathing preparations” and cancelled the registration in respect of the remaining goods. Application thus partially successful.