BAILII [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 >> FINALE (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o17605 (24 June 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o17605.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o17605

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


FINALE (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2005] UKIntelP o17605 (24 June 2005)

For the whole decision click here: o17605

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/176/05
Decision date
24 June 2005
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
FINALE
Classes
03
Applicant for Revocation
Lidl Stiftung & Co KG
Registered Proprietor
Helen of Troy Limited
Revocation
Section 46(1)(a) & (b)

Result

Section 46(1)9a) & (b): - Application for revocation successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The registered proprietor filed evidence of use of its mark. This consisted of two invoices for the sums of £162 and £325 in respect of the FINALE product. Sample packaging showed the product to be a hair spray which is within the specification which reads "Preparations included in Class 3 for the hair".

A statutory declaration from a Mr Kevin James, Senior Vice President, stated that there was use of the mark FINALE by the proprietor, and predecessors in title, in relation to a range of hair products, between September 1998 to September 2003 (the date of the application for revocation) and an exhibit lists actual sales ranging from £298,000 to £440,000. However, this exhibit fails to confirm that the sales figures related to sales of the FINALE product.

In considering the question of genuine use the Hearing Officer observed that the evidence filed by the proprietor was sketchy and poorly focused and did not confirm the required facts as regards use in an ordered or logical way. He was, therefore, left to draw conclusions and this was unsatisfactory as the onus is on the registered proprietor to show use of its mark. The Hearing Officer decided that use had not been proved and therefore the application for revocation succeeded



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o17605.html