Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
16 January 2006
Appointed Person
Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
Registered Proprietor
Datasphere SA
Applicants for Revocation
Intelliq Limited
Appeal to the Appointed Person against the decision of the Registrar's Hearing Officer in revocation proceedings.


Appeal partly successful

Points Of Interest

  • 1. A counterstatement must "provide a focused statement of the grounds on which it is contended that the tribunal should or should not do what it has been asked to do".
  • 2. If a date earlier than the date of the application for revocation is claimed that must be stated in the pleadings.


At first instance (see BL O/193/05) the Hearing Officer had found the applicant for revocation partly successful and the specification had been reduced to "computer software and computer programmes".

The applicant for revocation appealed, contending:- that the evidence of use showed use in relation to services, not goods; that the specification remaining was too broad and, finally, that the specifications should have been revoked from a date earlier than that ordered by the Hearing Officer.

The applicant also sought to raise an objection based on an irregularity in the original filing of the proprietor's counterstatement and the 'see attached' evidence.

The Appointed Person agreed that an irregularity had occurred, which should have been dealt with at the time of filing. However, the defect was curable, it was not fatal and the parties had joined issue on the deficient counterstatement notwithstanding the deficiencies. That was the end of the matter. Following his review of the main grounds of appeal the Appointed Person dismissed two of them but he agreed that the specification as amended was still too broad and he further reduced it so as to read "computer software and computer programmes, all for use in or with banking or financial telecommunications systems".

Full decision O/018/06 PDF document65Kb