||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 256 (Nov)
|| EWHC 2584 (Ch)
||Ian Purvis (instructed by Osborne Clarke) for the company.
||Andrew Allan-Jones of Burges Salmon LLP, Bristol, for the respondent.
||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 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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary