Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
15 April 2005
Appointed Person
Professor Ruth Annand
Applicant for Revocation
Field Fisher Waterhouse
Registered Proprietor
Marketing Triangle Inc
Section 46(1)(a) & (b)


Section 46(1)(a) & (b): - Appeal dismissed. Application for revocation successful.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. See Hearing Officer's decision dated 8 November 2004 (BL O/332/04).


In his decision dated 8 November 2004 (BL O/332/04) the Hearing Officer found that the registered proprietor had used ISOSCELES CONSULTING INC without the VITALITY DRIVER and device element and BRAND VITALITY DRIVER and device without the words ISOSCELES CONSULTING INC. There was in fact no use of the mark as registered and the Hearing Officer decided that use of the various elements were in fact use of separate marks and did not constitute use of the mark as registered. The revocation action was therefore successful.

The Appointed Person carefully reviewed the evidence filed in the proceedings and took full account of the Hearing Officer's decision and reasoning. She confirmed the Hearing Officer's view that the use of different marks did not protect the registration and that the revocation action was therefore successful.

With regard to points made by the registered proprietor the Appointed Person confirmed that in revocation proceedings the onus is on the registered proprietor to file such evidence as it can to defend its registration. There is of course nothing to prevent a proprietor from seeking to register any mark it uses or proposes to use.

Full decision O/122/05 PDF document66Kb