BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> MAGIC BALL (Trade Mark: Revocation) [1999] UKIntelP o08499 (17 March 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o08499.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o8499, [1999] UKIntelP o08499

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


MAGIC BALL (Trade Mark: Revocation) [1999] UKIntelP o08499 (17 March 1999)

For the whole decision click here: o08499

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/084/99
Decision date
17 March 1999
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
MAGIC BALL
Classes
30
Registered Proprietor
Zeta Espacial SA
Applicants for Revocation
Nestle UK Ltd
Consolidated applications (two) for revocation : Section 46(1)(b)

Result

Application for revocation partially successful

Application for revocation partially successful

Points Of Interest

Summary

The registered proprietor agreed that there had been no use during the relevant period but claimed that there were ‘proper reasons’ for this. They further put forward the argument that the marks should not be revoked in their entirety since they owned similar registrations in other EU states and allowing the applicants to revoke the mark and obtain a registration of the mark in their own name would "fractionalise" the market and be "contrary to the spirit and intent of the common market".

The Hearing Officer accepted that the technical difficulties encountered in manufacture constituted "proper reasons", but found that these applied to only one of the goods in the specification and he therefore revoked the registration in respect of the remaining goods. As these constituted the majority he awarded costs to the applicants. He did not accept that the Registrar had a discretion to preserve the registrations intact.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o08499.html