Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/340/04
Decision date
20 October 2004
Hearing officer
Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
Mark
DEVICE ONLY
Classes
25
Applicant for Revocation
Skjelland Group AS
Registered Proprietor
Alison June Coggins
Revocation
Section 46(1)(b). Appeal to the Appointed Person

Result

Section 46(1)(b) - Registrar's decision set aside. Proceedings returned to the Registrar.

Points Of Interest

  • As described.

Summary

The above mark was registered on 16 May 1997 with an address for service at 43 Moreton Street, London SW1. An application for revocation was made by Skjelland Group AS on 26 September 2003 and a copy of the relevant papers was sent to the proprietor’s address for service by the Registry. The first letter sent by recorded delivery was returned by the Post Office as "undeliverable" and a further letter by ordinary post was sent to the same address on 23 January 2004. The proprietor failed to respond within the three month period allowed and the Registrar subsequently treated the application an “unopposed” and issued a decision on 9 June 2004 allowing the request for revocation with effect from 26 September 2004. (Note: Decision not issued in the BL series).

Neither party was satisfied with the decision and both appealed to the Appointed Person. The applicant contended that the revocation should have been allowed from an earlier date whereas the registered proprietor wished the Registrar’s decision to be set aside because of an irregularity; the claim being made that the Registrar should have made greater efforts to properly serve the revocation documents on the proprietor. This claim was rejected because the Appointed Person noted that the law required a proprietor to maintain its current address for service on the Register and if it did not do so, then it suffered any consequences arising.

The Appointed Person did, however, set aside the Registrar’s decision because of an irregularity in procedure. Before issuing his decision the Registrar failed to offer the parties the opportunity to be heard or to make written submissions as required by Rule 54 of the Trade Mark Rules 2000. Case returned to the Registrar with the instruction that he advise the parties how the proceedings were to be dealt with.

Costs awarded to the applicant for revocation.

Full decision O/340/04 PDF document81Kb