IPO The registered proprietor filed a TM8 and counterstatement along with documentation which, it was claimed ‘demonstrated evidence of use’ of the mark. The applicants claimed that the burden of proof (Section 100) had not been discharged and asked that the mark be revoked accordingly. Alternatively, they asked that the proprietor be required to file further and better particulars. The Registry accordingly issued an order for disclosure. In the light of the proprietor’s failure to respond to this order, the Hearing Officer considered that the defence of the application should be struck out, and the registration revoked accordingly.
Judges:
M Knight
Citations:
[2000] UKIntelP o07700, O/077/00
Links:
Intellectual Property
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.453774
