Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
25 April 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
Application for Revocation
Ideal Home Limited
Registered Proprietor
IPC Media Limited
Sections 46(1)(a) & (b) & 46(5)


Section 46(1)(a) & (b): - Revocation request refused.

Section 46(5): - Request to restrict specification refused.

Points Of Interest


The mark in suit was registered as of 7 March 1997 in respect of printed publications in Class 16. By way of an application dated 18 December 2002 Ideal Home Limited requested revocation on the grounds of non use; in the alternative it asked for restriction of the specification by the striking out of those goods on which the mark in suit had not been used.

The registered proprietor filed evidence of use which consisted of copies of pages from two magazines dated December 1997 and October 1998. They had on the front cover and interior pages the words "IDEAL HOME" in large print and underneath in manuscript in smaller type face "& lifestyle". The proprietor claimed that the word "lifestyle" refers to the context of the publications and that in any event IDEAL HOME is the distinctive element of the mark in suit. Details of extensive use of the mark IDEAL HOME was also provided.

The Hearing Officer accepted that there had been genuine use of the mark in suit during the relevant five year period of the application for revocation, since he did not believe that use of the ampersand in place of the word "and" the fact that "lifestyle" was shown in a different type face, affected the distinctive character of the mark in suit.

As regards the width of the specification of the mark in suit the applicant had asked that the term "printed publications" should be reduced to "Magazines relating to interior decorating for the home". The Hearing Officer noted from the evidence, that the magazines provided covered a range of topics such as gardening, travel, cookery, fashion and health and decided that it was not appropriate to restrict the specification as requested. The application for revocation thus failed in its totality.

Full decision O/112/05 PDF document29Kb