Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
11 March 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
Applicant for Revocation
Saab Textiles Ltd
Registered Proprietor
Saab AB
Section 46(1)(b)


Section 46(1)(b) - Revocation successful

Points Of Interest

  • 3. In correspondence between the parties it had been established that the applicants for revocation only used “Saab” as the name of a limited company and they did not use it as a trade mark or on invoices etc. The parties agreed that the proceedings need not proceed so in order that the mark in suit could remain on the Register the appeal was allowed by consent. Decision dated 2 February 2003 [2003] EWHC 185 (Pat).
  • 1. Promotional use and badge of allegiance use are not the same as "indicator of use" in a trade mark sense.
  • 2. The registered proprietors appealed to the High Court and requested to be allowed to file additional evidence, which had been available but not filed in the proceedings before the Registrar. Request refused.


The registered proprietors are motor vehicle manufacturers but they claimed to have made available and sold a range of clothing during the relevant period of five years prior to the application. They claimed in particular that garments were on general display in showrooms and that a catalogue of items available was held at such showrooms. This evidence was challenged by the applicants who stated that they had visited a number of SAAB showrooms and no clothing was on display; neither were catalogues available as claimed.

The Hearing Officer reviewed the registered proprietors evidence carefully and concluded that there had been little or no sales of clothing under the mark SAAB. He accepted that Saab employees often wore clothing bearing the SAAB mark and that there might have been some promotional use by way of display on T-Shirts, Caps etc but the proprietors evidence was totally insufficient to show that proper use had been made of the mark SAAB on clothing during the relevant period in the context of an indication of origin of such goods. Revocation therefore allowed.

Full decision O/108/02 PDF document33Kb