Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
4 April 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr E S Smith
Applicant for Invalidity
Kaga Electronics Co Ltd
Registered Proprietor
ARP Datacon AG
Sections 47(2)(a) & 5(2)(b)


Section 47(2)(a) - Invalidity action failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Invalidity action failed

Points Of Interest

  • Failure to defend a registration does not mean that it will be removed from the Register. A registered mark is considered valid in all respects (Section 72 ) so if an applicant is to be successful he must show reasonable grounds and, if appropriate, provide evidence.


The applicants application for a declaration of invalidity was based on their ownership of two registrations in Class 9 for the mark TAXAN in respect of the same and similar goods to those of the registered proprietor.

The registered proprietor was advised of the application but neither filed a counterstatement or any submissions in response. The applicants filed no evidence or submissions in support of their application for invalidity.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks. Because of the difference in the first syllable of the respective marks, and because of the importance of this aspect when comparing marks, the Hearing Officer concluded that overall the marks were not similar. The application for invalidity therefore failed.

Full decision O/152/02 PDF document14Kb