In earlier opposition proceedings between the parties (BL O/240/04) it appeared likely that the registered proprietor had not used the mark as registered. In these proceedings the proprietor did not claim use of the mark as registered but stated that there had been use of a variation of the mark in that the words HONG MEI had been used instead of HUNG MEI. It claimed that this change did not affect the distinctive character of the mark as registered.
The applicant for revocation was critical of the registered proprietor’s evidence and submitted that the mark as used was different from that registered.
The Hearing Officer accepted that there had been no use of the mark as registered and went on to compare the elements HONG MEI and HUNG MEI. As he found these elements to be very different he concluded that use of the HONG MEI mark could not protect the mark as registered. Revocation thus succeeded.
Citations:
1056909, [2005] UKIntelP o19605
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.456372