BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> TIME MACHINE (Series of two) (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2008] UKIntelP o30608 (10 November 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o30608.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o30608 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o30608
Result
Appeal to the Appointed Person: Appeal dismissed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 8 April 2008 the Hearing Officer was satisfied that the registered proprietor had used its marks and he dismissed the application for revocation.
The applicant appealed to the Appointed Person on the grounds that the Hearing Officer had erred in his consideration of the registered proprietor’s evidence and ought not to have been satisfied that use of the marks in suit had taken place. The registered proprietor cross-appealed in relation to a decision by the Hearing Officer to allow the filing of late evidence.
The Appointed Person reviewed the evidence before the Hearing Officer and his written decision. In particular the Appointed Person looked at the evidence relating to web-site use and accepted that this merely showed awareness of the marks rather than use. However, with regard to the sale of Early Starter Kits within the relevant period the Appointed Person believed that the Hearing Officer had made a reasonable decision in relation to the sale of such goods and she went on to dismiss the appeal.
As regards the cross appeal the Appointed Person decided that the Hearing Officer had taken two narrow a view in refusing to accept into the proceedings late filed evidence. In the context of these proceedings such evidence would have plugged some holes in the registered proprietor’s evidence and thus it was clearly relevant. Also, the applicant only objected on the grounds that it wished to have an opportunity to respond. However, no further action in view of the dismissal of the appeal.
