Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- Decision date
- 12 February 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- RUBY BRAND R
- Applicant for Revocation
- East End Foods Plc
- Registered Proprietor
- Tradelink (London) Limited
- Section 46(1)(b)
Section 46(1)(b): - Revocation action successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. The application to revoke was made on 20 April 2002. If the proprietors had made good their claim of use in relation to papadoms from mid 2000 onwards they might have protected their registration.
- 2. The registered proprietors appealed to the Appointed Person. After hearing the parties the Appointed Person concluded that the Hearing Officer's decision was correct, based on the papers before him. However, he decided that there had been confusion as to the type of evidence the registered proprietors should file and there had in fact been an irregularity in procedure. The Hearing Officer's decision was set aside and the proceedings remitted to the Registry for further processing and directions. (BL O/203/04).
- 3. Fresh decision issued on 18 April 2005 (BL O/101/05). Application allowed in respect of all goods other than saffron.
The registered proprietors filed some evidence of use in relation to saffron and tea but such use was of the word element only RUBY BRAND. They claimed they had reasons for non-use of their mark in relation to papads and papadoms; referring to an earlier application for revocation by the current applicants and an illness and death in the family which had caused further delay. However, they claimed that in the middle of 2001 they had commenced to develop their mark in relation to papadoms and these had now been launched on the open market.
The Hearing Officer considered the registered proprietors claimed use and decided that as the device and better R element had not been used, the use of the words only, RUBY BRAND, did not protect the registration.
With regard to the reasons for non-use the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the reasons given were "proper reasons" within the context of the Act. Nor was any evidence filed to support the claim that the mark had been used in relation to papads from the middle of 2001 onwards. The application for revocation thus succeeded.
Full decision O/042/04 56Kb