The applicants sought revocation of the defendant’s trade marks on the grounds that they had not been implemented after five years. It was sensible to go straight from the Directive, rather than the Act which implemented it. The onus was on the holder to demonstrate use. One claim was for medical use, but the product had not been licensed for such, and the registrar had deemed it unused. What amount and kind of use will suffice to prove that a mark has been put to genuine use within the meaning of the Article? Provided there is nothing artificial about a transaction under a mark, then it will amount to ‘genuine’ use. There is no minimum. Remaining questions were to be referred to the European Court for interpretation of the Article.
 EWHC 492 (Ch)
Trade Marks Directive 89/104/EEC (1989 OJ No L40/5) Art 10, Trade Marks Act 1994 46(1)
England and Wales
See Also – Re Trade Marks Act 1994 Trade Marks Nos 1338514 (in Class 5) and 1402537 (in Class 3) in the name of Laboratories Goemar SA and Applications for Revocation thereof Nos 10073 and 10074 by La Mer Technology Inc ChD 20-Jun-2003
A case had been referred to the court as to the interpetation of the articles in the Directive. The court replied asking whether the subsequent Ansul judgement answered the questions raised.
Held: By agreement with the parties, only one of the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2021; Ref: scu.167213