(Trade Mark: Revocation) The registered proprietor filed evidence to show that the firm of Entecon Limited was owned by a predecessor in business until the end of 2003. The proprietor filed sufficient-evidence from that period to convince the Hearing Officer that there had been genuine use of the marks ENTECON, ENTECON BAGFLOW and ENTECON EASISHIFT up to that date. The registered proprietor also stated that much of the evidence of use of the marks in suit is held by Entecon UK Limited, the applicant for revocation. The applicant has not challenged the proprietor’s evidence.
During 2003 the marks in suit were assigned to the registered proprietor’s predecessor by Entecon Limited. In 2004 Entecon Limited went into administration and was sold to Entecon UK Limited. However, the marks in suit remained in the ownership of the registered proprietor’s predecessor.
As noted above the registered proprietor filed sufficient evidence to protect the registrations of ENTECON, ENTECON BACFLOW and ENTECON EASISHIFT and the revocation action was dismissed in respect of these marks. In relation to ENTECON BINFLOW the Hearing Officer considered that the BINFLOW element was descriptive and non-distinctive and that the proved user of the distinctive element ENTECON also protected this registration. Revocation therefore failed in respect of all four registrations.
[2008] UKIntelP o10208
Bailii
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.456995
