Multi-Access Ltd v Guanghzhou Wong Lo Kat Great Health Business Development Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 3357 (Ch) (12 December 2019)

Multi-Access Ltd v Guanghzhou Wong Lo Kat Great Health Business Development Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 3357 (Ch) (12 December 2019)

The Hearing Officer correctly applied the relevant statutory periods and legal tests, and properly assessed the evidence; the proprietor failed to discharge the burden of proving genuine use of the trade marks in the UK for the registered goods during the relevant periods; evidence was insufficient, uncorroborated, and did not relate to goods covered by the specifications; appeal dismissed.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3357 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant/proprietor: Multi-Access Limited; Respondent/applicant: Guanghzhuo Wong Lo Kat Great Health Business Development Co Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Trade Mark Revocation Appeal / Appeal From UK Intellectual Property Office Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Hearing Officer's decision upheld.
Legal Topics
Revocation for Non Use, Genuine Use, Specification Clarity, Burden of Proof
Intellectual Property Trade Marks Revocation for Non Use Genuine Use Specification Clarity Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multi-Access Limited

Appellant/proprietor

Guanghzhuo Wong Lo Kat Great Health Business Development Co Ltd

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Trade Mark Revocation Appeal / Appeal From UK Intellectual Property Office Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registered trade marks were put to genuine use in the UK during relevant periods
  2. 2 Whether evidence adduced was sufficient to prove genuine use
  3. 3 Whether goods evidenced fell within the registered specifications

Ratio Decidendi

The Hearing Officer correctly applied the relevant statutory periods and legal tests, and properly assessed the evidence; the proprietor failed to discharge the burden of proving genuine use of the trade marks in the UK for the registered goods during the relevant periods; evidence was insufficient, uncorroborated, and did not relate to goods covered by the specifications; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Hearing Officer's decision upheld.

Orders

  • Revocation of UK trade mark registrations 1495166 and 1495167 for non-use, effective from 10 July 1998 (166) and 3 July 1998 (167)
  • Proprietor to pay Applicant's costs in the sum of £1600