Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 256 (Nov)
Neutral Citation: [2005] EWHC 2584 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division

Kitchin J

Representation Ian Purvis (instructed by Osborne Clarke) for the company.
  Andrew Allan-Jones of Burges Salmon LLP, Bristol, for the respondent.
Judgment Dates: 18 November 2005


Trade mark - Registration - Opposition - Respondent company applying for revocation of trade mark on grounds of non-use - Appellant company opposing revocation application - Whether appellant complying with relevant rules for filing of evidence - Correctness of hearing officer's approach - Trade Marks Rules 2000, , r 31(3).

The Case

The purpose of the evidence under r31(3) of the Trade Marks Rules 2000, , was to establish that the proprietor had an arguable or viable defence to the attack mounted upon the registration and to provide the applicant for revocation with sufficient information to enable him to investigate the use of the mark upon which the proprietor proposed to rely.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.