Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
18 April 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
Applicant for Revocation
East End Foods Plc
Registered Proprietor
Tradelink (London) Ltd
Section 46(1)(b)


Section 46(1)(b): - Revocation action successful in respect of all goods other that saffron.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. None


On 10 February 2004 (BL O/042/04) the Registrar issued his decision in these proceedings. He concluded that there had been no use of the mark as registered and there were no "proper reasons" for the lack of use of the mark in suit. The application thus succeeded.

The registered proprietor appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 30 April 2004 (BL O/203/04) the Appointed Person decided that there had been an irregularity in procedure in relation to the registered proprietor's evidence and he remitted the proceedings back to the Registrar.

Subsequently the registered proprietor filed further evidence. This included two exhibits RD4 and RD5. Exhibit RD4 consisted of a 5 gram container of saffron and a bag for Kenyan tea. The container bears the mark as registered; stated that the contents were packaged in the year 2000 and had one expiry date of 2003. The bag for packaging tea had a label showing a 'best before' date of the end of April 2004 which is some time after the relevant five year period. Exhibit RD5 consists of a selection of invoices from 1996 onwards and show use of the marks RUBY and RUBY BRAND in relation to tea and saffron. In his earlier decision the Hearing Officer had decided that use of RUBY and RUBY BRAND did not protect the mark as registered.

In relation to Exhibit RD4 the Hearing Officer concluded that there had been relevant use of the mark in suit in relation to saffron but that the evidence in relation to tea was too imprecise to be conclusive. Thus overall the application for revocation succeeded in respect of all goods other than saffron with effect from 26 April 2002.

In view of his earlier decision the Hearing Officer saw no need to consider again the matter of "proper reasons for non-use".

Full decision O/101/05 PDF document75Kb