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 >> MOBILE PLANET (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o32207 (1 November 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o32207.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o32207
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MOBILE PLANET (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2007] UKIntelP o32207 (1 November 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o32207
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/322/07
- Decision date
- 1 November 2007
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- MOBILE PLANET
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant for Revocation
- Mobile & Wireless Group Limited
- Registered Proprietor
- Avalon Enterprise AB
- Revocation
- Section 46(1)(a)
Result
Section 46(1)(b): Revocation successful.
Points Of Interest
- As described.
Summary
The applicant for revocation specified two five year periods. These were 11 January 2001 to 10 January 2006 and 29 May 2001 to 18 May 2006.
The registered proprietor filed evidence in support of its registration. This evidence consisted of copy invoices and examples of advertisements placed in a variety of trade and consumer publications during the period August 1979 to April 2003. These advertisements showed use of the mark as registered but the style shown on the invoices was MOBILE PLANET LIMITED or MOBILE PLANET UK LIMITED or MOBILE PLANET UK LIMITED. The Hearing Officer noted that the invoices all related to the sale of branded products and was not convinced that there had been use of the mark in suit in relation to the goods for which it is registered. The Hearing Officer went on to conclude that the mark MOBILE PLANET was merely used as the name of a retail or distribution service. On this basis the revocation action succeeded.
On the basis that he might be wrong as regards his decision above, the Hearing Officer went on to consider whether or not there had been use of the mark as registered. While use of the mark as registered was shown in the copy advertisements, all the examples were undated so it was not possible to conclude that there had been relevant use within the period specified. Thus the registered proprietor had to depend on the style shown on the invoices MOBILE PLANET LIMITED and MOBILE PLANET UK LIMITED. After full consideration the Hearing Officer decided that the use shown was of a nature which could be described as genuine use of the mark as registered or varied in such a way as not to alter the distinctive character of that mark.