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 £5, 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 >> ALFREDO (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2001] UKIntelP o48601 (6 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o48601.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o48601 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o48601
Result
Sections 1(1), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 3(4), 3(6), 5(1), 5(2), 5(4)(a) & 56 Application for Invalidity failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants stated that they have operated a restaurant under the name ALFREDO at the Epcot Center, Florida, for the past seventeen years. They have also operated a restaurant in New York since 1978 (currently closed but due to re-open in the year 2000). The applicants claimed that a great number of UK citizens visit the Epcot Center each year and claimed that some 35,000 UK citizens used their restaurant each year. The restaurant advertised in various publications, all US, and the applicants say they have had an Internet site under the name ALFREDO since 1996.
At the hearing the applicants’ representative said that he was not arguing the grounds under Sections 1(1), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 3(4) and 3(6) but was not abandoning them in case they were needed on appeal. As the applicants had filed no evidence in support of the grounds under these sections, the Hearing Officer dealt with them briefly and dismissed them all.
Under Sections 5(1), 5(2), 5(4)(a), and 56 the Hearing Officer noted the applicants claims to be well known in the UK because the UK and USA are neighbouring territories which share the same language and media and have close trade relations. Attention was also drawn to the use of the Epcot Center restaurant by a significant number of UK residents. The Hearing Officer refused to accept such arguments. In his view the applicants had failed to show that they had any reputation in the UK and the claims made were not substantiated by any real evidence. Even the Internet site, which could be accessed by UK residents, clearly refers to a service which is available only in the USA. The applicant thus failed on these grounds.
