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 >> MATERIAL GIRLS (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o26207 (12 September 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o26207.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o26207
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MATERIAL GIRLS (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o26207 (12 September 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o26207
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/262/07
- Decision date
- 12 September 2007
- Hearing officer
- Mrs A Corbett
- Mark
- MATERIAL GIRLS
- Classes
- 25
- Applicant for Revocation
- Ms Jayne Goodman
- Registered Proprietor
- Darasham Sandhu t/a Marks (London)
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a) & (b)
Result
Section 46(1)(a) & (b): Revocation allowed
Points Of Interest
- The applicant claimed revocation in respect of two periods form 1st April 2000 and from 18th April 2001. The Registry had requested amendment of the two dates and the Hearing Officers said this was an error. He restored the original dates. This matter did not impact on the Hearing Officer’s decision.
Summary
The registered proprietor claimed to have used its mark from 1993 onwards and filed evidence relating to the purchase of sew-in and swing labels; photographs of garments showing such labels and copy invoices. It also claimed turnover under the marks of some £400K per annum for the years 2000-2006.
In its evidence the applicant claimed that an internet search had been carried out and no evidence of any use of the mark was found.
The Hearing Officer examined the registered proprietor’s evidence in detail. As regards the claims made the Hearing Officer noted that the declaration did not make clear that all or any sales related to the UK; none of the invoices bear the mark in suit and much of the other evidence was undated and poorly focused. Overall the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that there had been genuine use of the mark in suit and he allowed revocation.