Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/131/04
Decision date
11 May 2004
Hearing officer
Mrs A Corbett
Mark
LITTLE ME
Classes
18, 21, 24, 25, 28
Registered Proprietor
S Schwab Company Inc
Applicant for Revocation
Floraroma
Interlocutory hearing on evidence of use filed in revocation proceedings

Result

Evidence of use sufficient ("if only just") to allow proceedings to continue.

Points Of Interest

  • Evidence of use in revocation proceedings; need not be the entirety of the registered proprietor’s case in view of the fact that the period set for Rule 31(2) is non-extendable under Rule 68(3).

Summary

The issue before the Hearing Officer was whether evidence of use filed by the registered proprietor was sufficient to allow the proceedings to continue. Following various exchanges concerning the correct address for service in respect of these three registrations, a TM8, statement of case, witness statement and an exhibit was filed on behalf of the registered proprietor. The Registry gave as its preliminary view that the witness statement and exhibit did not discharge the onus on the registered proprietor to show evidence of use. A hearing was sought.

In essence, the registered proprietor's case was that in view of the delays which had occurred and other difficulties of timing this was the best they could come up with at the time, but it had established a prima facie case which could be expanded at later stages in the evidence procedure.

The applicant for revocation disagreed, pointing to the fact that their own researches, prior to the filing of the application, had shown no use. They also pointed to the fact that the exhibits were photocopies, about which there were doubts.

The Hearing Officer, having rehearsed the various requirements and relevant authorities concerning the filing of evidence of use concluded, in the result, that the evidence filed was sufficient, "if only just", to allow the proceedings to continue. Had this not been so the Hearing Officer would in any event have exercised the Registrar’s discretion under Rule 31(3), in view of the reasons given for the sparseness of the evidence.

Full decision O/131/04 PDF document41Kb