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 >> FAMOS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2007] UKIntelP o11207 (23 April 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o11207.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o11207 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o11207
Result
Section 47(1) & Section 3(6): Application successful. Section 47(2)(b) & Section 5(4)(a): Application successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicant for invalidation (Arcadia) states that the company was purchased in 1986 including the trade mark FAMOS and the goodwill of the business. Due to an oversight the Register of Trade Marks was not updated and the registration expired due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The mark in suit was subsequently registered by the current proprietor and the applicant states that the current registered proprietor was aware of his company’s use and ownership of the mark FAMOS when he applied to register it.
Arcadia has filed extensive evidence in these proceedings from its own records and from other traders which establishes that it has used its FAMOS mark for many years in relation to flour and preparations made from cereals and spices and has an extensive reputation in its mark. The Hearing Officer had no difficulty in concluding that Arcadia was successful in its ground of invalidation under Section 47(2)(b) and 5(4)(a).
In relation to the bad faith ground, Section 3(6), the Hearing Officer found that the current registered proprietor was aware that he was not the owner of the mark FAMOS when he applied to register it. Having obtained registration he then tried to force the applicant to apply for a licence to use its mark. Subsequently he made various promises to return the mark to the applicant but failed to fulfil those promises. Having considered the matter carefully the Hearing Officer concluded that the applicant was also successful on the “bad faith” ground.
Having been successful in its application, the applicant sought costs above the normal scale but the Hearing Officer refused this request.
