Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
30 March 2007
Hearing Officer
Mr C Bowen
VALENT BIOSCIENCES & device Series os 2
01, 05
Applicant for Revocation
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Registered Proprietor
Valent Biosciences Corporation
Section 46(1)(a). Interlocutory Hearing to consider acceptance of late filed Form TM8 and Counterstatement


Request to allow filing of TM8: Request allowed. Also amendment to TM26(N) required.

Points Of Interest

  • As described.


The mark in suit was registered on 9 February 2001 and the application for revocation requested revocation from 9 February 2006. The revocation documents were sent to the registered proprietor but it was later claimed that they had never been received despite the fact that the Post Office advised that it had a signature for the recorded delivery package.

Subsequently the registered proprietor filed documents TM8, Counterstatement and a statement of use of its mark and requested a hearing to submit arguments and further evidence about the missing documents. In particular it claimed that the Post Office signature was not recognised by the post room of the agency concerned. It later transpired that the package had been incorrectly addressed in that the wrong post code had been used and the post office could not confirm that the package had been delivered to the office concerned. In requesting a hearing the registered proprietor submitted that the application for revocation was in error in that the five year period for revocation should run from 10 February 2001 to 10 February 2006. After hearing the parties the Hearing Officer decided that there had been an error in procedure in that the revocation request had not been sent to the registered proprietor’s correct address. He also decided that the revocation period should run from 10 February 2001 to 10 February 2006 and thus the TM 26N and Counterstatement would require amendment and it would be necessary to reset the clock and send these amended documents to the registered proprietor for consideration.

Full decision O/094/07 PDF document154Kb