British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
BUSINESS ZONE PLUS BUSINESS ZONE (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2007] UKIntelP o36407 (13 December 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o36407.html
Cite as:
[2007] UKIntelP o36407
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
BUSINESS ZONE PLUS BUSINESS ZONE (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2007] UKIntelP o36407 (13 December 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o36407
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/364/07
- Decision date
- 13 December 2007
- Hearing officer
- Ms A Michaels
- Mark
- BUSINESS ZONE PLUS BUSINESS ZONE
- Classes
- 09, 38
- Registered Proprietor
- T-Mobile (UK) Limited
- Applicants for a declaration of Invalidity/Appellants
- 02 Holdings Limited
- Invalidity
- Appeal to the Appointed Person against the decision of the Registrar’s Hearing Officer in invalidity proceedings
Result
Appeal successful, Hearing officer’s decision set aside and the invalidity action remitted to the Registrar for further processing.
Points Of Interest
-
1. Invalidation actions against marks already revoked, surrendered or abandoned
-
"It would not be appropriate to construe the phrase (Section 47(1)) as applying only to “live” marks ....”
-
2. Abuse of process; delay in launching proceedings; in this case the delay was not such as to justify striking out.
-
3. Appeals raising only academic or theoretical issues.
-
4. See also BL O/091/07
Summary
At first instance (see BL O/091/07) the Hearing Officer maintained the view that the Registry would not process invalidation actions against registrations no longer on the register. He had also decided that the action would be an abuse of process. 02 appealed to the Appointed Person. Having reviewed the matter and the particular circumstances of this case the Appointed Person concluded that Section 47(1) should not be construed as applying only to live marks. She also found that in the circumstances of the case the invalidation application was not an abuse of process. She set aside the Hearing Officer’s decision and remitted the matter to the Registry for further consideration.