Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
22 February 2007
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
Applicant for Revocation
Wycombe Wine Company Limited
Registered Proprietor
CM Vintners Limited
Section 46(1)(a) & (b)


Section 46(1)(a) & (b): Revocation allowed.

Points Of Interest

  • None


The registered proprietor admitted that there had been no use of the mark as registered but claimed use of the mark ROCHELLE in relation to a sparkling Perry. Evidence to confirm this use indicated that user had been modest over a short period but the Hearing Officer accepted that the documentation indicated genuine use.

The applicant claimed that use of the mark ROCHELLE was insufficient to protect the mark as registered because, while CHATEAU is a non-distinctive term in relation to wines, its presence changes the perception of the mark as a whole.

The Hearing Officer considered the matter carefully and concluded that the absence of the word CHATEAU from the mark as registered altered its distinctive character. Thus the use of ROCHELLE did not protect the registration. Revocation allowed.

Full decision O/056/07 PDF document31Kb