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!
 |
[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 >> MEDORA OF LONDON (Trade Mark: Revocation) [2000] UKIntelP o17500 (17 May 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o17500.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o17500 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o17500
Result
Section 60 - Application failed.
Section 47(1) and 3(6) - Application failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The statement of case supporting the application for revocation and invalidity was extremely wide ranging and, with the exception of the above grounds, was not supported by the evidence filed. The Hearing Officer dismissed the claims made under Sections 1, 3 and 5.
Section 60 relates to the filing of an application for registration by an agent or representative of a proprietor of a mark in a Convention Country. In this case there was insufficient evidence to support such a claim.
The applicants main ground in these proceedings was under Sections 47(1) and 3(6) on the basis that the application was made in bad faith. The evidence established that the principal owner of the registered proprietors was Mr Mohammed Azeem and the applicant claimed that Mr Azeem had earlier represented himself as General Manager and Managing Director of Ahmed Rajab Abdullah Trading Estate and had negotiated for the purchase and importation of the applicants goods into the United Kingdom under the marks MEDORA and MEDORA OF LONDON. Extensive evidence as to such contacts between the parties was provided but the Hearing Officer found that the applicants failed in their application since their evidence failed to establish that Mr Mohammed Azeem of the Ahmed Rajab Company was the same Mr Mohammed Azeem of Max Care International (the registered proprietors). Without such evidence the Registrar could not assume a connection.
