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 >> BS BANCO SAFRA (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2001] UKIntelP o39101 (10 September 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o39101.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o39101

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


BS BANCO SAFRA (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2001] UKIntelP o39101 (10 September 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o39101

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/391/01
Decision date
10 September 2001
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
BS BANCO SAFRA
Classes
36
Registered Proprietor
Banco Safra S.A.
Applicants for Declaration for Invalidity
Safra S.A.
Application for Invalidation
Section 47(2)(a)

Result

Section 47(2)(a): - Application for invalidation successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

This was one of four closely related actions; see also BL O/392/01, O/393/01 and O/394/01. In this case the marks were BANCO SAFRA and shield device v SAFRA . The mark in suit was filed on 8 July 1998 whereas the applicants’ mark had an international priority date of 1 July 1998. The Hearing Officer therefore concluded that the applicants’ mark was an earlier trade mark for the purposes of Section 5(2). He went on to find that the services were closely related and the ‘distinctive parts’ of the mark were identical; he therefore concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion and the application succeeded accordingly. The registered proprietors had invoked Section 56 of the Act claiming that their mark was entitled to protection under the Paris Convention. The Hearing Officer however ruled that Section 56 provided a basis for an opposition or an invalidation; it did not serve as a defence in invalidation proceedings. Besides, he said, the registered proprietor had provided no evidence in support of his claim.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o39101.html