Abanka D.D v Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A.
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Daniel Alexander |
| Judgment Date | 06 October 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 2428 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | APPEAL REF: CH 2017-000010 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
| Date | 06 October 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 2428 (Ch)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
ON APPEAL FROM THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London EC4
Mr Daniel Alexander QC
Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division
APPEAL REF: CH 2017-000010
Mr Simon Malynicz QC (instructed by Innovate Legal LLP) for the Appellant
Mr Andrew Norris (instructed by Potter Clarkson LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 19 June 2017
Approved Judgment
I direct that, pursuant to CPR PD39A para 6.1, no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
Daniel Alexander QC
Daniel Alexander QC
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal from the decision of Ms Judi Pike, acting for the Registrar, in consolidated proceedings for
a. revocation of two international trade mark registrations of which the key element is the word ABANKA, owned by the appellant, Abanka d.d. ("Abanka") and
b. opposition based on those marks against an application for registration of the trade mark ABANCA in stylized form filed by the respondent, Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A. ("Abanca").
The marks in issue
The marks ABANKA (in colour and in black and white or no colour) are international trade mark registrations (numbers 860632 and 860561, respectively) in classes 35, 36 and 38 have been protected in the UK since they completed their registration procedures on 17 March and 24 March 2006, respectively. Their specifications were set out in the annex to the hearing officer's decision and they cover a very wide range of financial services. It is not necessary to set all of these out at this stage.
Use of the marks
It was not in dispute that there had been no use in relation to a wide range of the services in question. The central issue in the case is whether the activities of Abanka constitute use of the marks in the UK sufficient to support the continued registration of the marks in respect of some or all of the remainder. The hearing officer held that no use had been proved in the relevant periods with the consequence that the marks were revoked and could not be relied on as a basis for opposition to the registration of the marks ABANCA by Abanca. Accordingly, she also dismissed the opposition.
As to that opposition, Abanka opposes Abanca's request for protection of ABANCA in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38 only under section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ("the Act"), claiming a likelihood of confusion with the earlier ABANKA marks which are the subject of the applications for revocation. The hearing officer did not ultimately need to decide whether or not the marks ABANCA in its particular stylized form and font and ABANKA in the form in which it was registered sufficiently similar so as to give rise to a likelihood of confusion in respect of any of the goods or services for which registration of the ABANCA mark was sought, since the earlier registrations were revoked. That removed the whole basis for the oppositions. It is of some significance for what follows that Abanka did not challenge the registration of the stylized ABANCA mark on the basis of section 5(4) of the Act (alleging passing off) or suggest that it had built up sufficient goodwill in the UK as a result of its activities to do so. Nonetheless, it contends that the law relating to use of trade marks entitles it to preserve its registrations.
There is no dispute as to the relevant periods in respect of which use must be considered and no dispute as to the primary facts, although Abanca invited the hearing officer and this court on appeal to look at some of the evidence of use with a sceptical eye. The real issue is whether, assuming the primary facts as found by the hearing officer are proved, such constitutes use in the UK sufficient to maintain the registrations to any and, if so, what extent.
LAW
Statutory framework
Section 46 of the Act provides:
"(1) The registration of a trade mark may be revoked on any of the following grounds—
(a) that within the period of five years following the date of completion of the registration procedure it has not been put to genuine use in the United Kingdom, by the proprietor or with his consent, in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use;
(b) that such use has been suspended for an uninterrupted period of five years, and there are no proper reasons for non-use;
(c) that, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service for which it is registered;
(d) that in consequence of the use made of it by the proprietor or with his consent in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, it is liable to mislead the public, particularly as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of those goods or services.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) use of a trade mark includes use in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, and use in the United Kingdom includes affixing the trade mark to goods or to the packaging of goods in the United Kingdom solely for export purposes.
(3) The registration of a trade mark shall not be revoked on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) if such use as is referred to in that paragraph is commenced or resumed after the expiry of the five year period and before the application for revocation is made.
Provided that, any such commencement or resumption of use after the expiry of the five year period but within the period of three months before the making of the application shall be disregarded unless preparations for the commencement or resumption began before the proprietor became aware that the application might be made.
(4) An application for revocation may be made by any person, and may be made either to the registrar or to the court, except that——
(a) if proceedings concerning the trade mark in question are pending in the court, the application must be made to the court; and
(b) if in any other case the application is made to the registrar, he may at any stage of the proceedings refer the application to the court.
(5) Where grounds for revocation exist in respect of only some of the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, revocation shall relate to those goods or services only.
(6) Where the registration of a trade mark is revoked to any extent, the rights of the proprietor shall be deemed to have ceased to that extent as from——
(a) the date of the application for revocation, or
(b) if the registrar or court is satisfied that the grounds for revocation existed at an earlier date, that date."
The onus is on the proprietor to prove use. Section 100 of the Act provides:
"If in any civil proceedings under this Act a question arises as to the use to which a registered trade mark has been put, it is for the proprietor to show what use has been made of it."
Proof of use – general
The hearing officer took the summary of the relevant principles from The London Taxi Corporation Ltd (t/a The London Taxi Company) v. Fraser-Nash Research Ltd & another [2016] EWHC 52 (Ch) at [217]–[219] as follows:
"217. In Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank Inc [2013] EWHC 418 (Ch), [2013] FSR 35 I set out at [51] a helpful summary by Anna Carboni sitting as the Appointed Person in SANT AMBROEUS Trade Mark [2010] RPC 28 at [42] of the jurisprudence of the CJEU in Case C-40/01 Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV [2003] ECR I-2439, Case C-259/02 La Mer Technology Inc v Laboratories Goemar SA [2004] ECR I-1159 and Case C-495/07 Silberquelle GmbH v Maselli-Strickmode GmbH [2009] ECR I-2759 (to which I added references to Case C-416/04 P Sunrider Corp v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [2006] ECR I-4237). I also referred at [52] to the judgment of the CJEU in Case C-149/11 Leno Merken BV v Hagelkruis Beheer BV [EU:C:2012:816], [2013] ETMR 16 on the question of the territorial extent of the use. Since then the CJEU has issued a reasoned Order in Case C-141/13 P Reber Holding & Co KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) [EU: C:2014:2089] and that Order has been persuasively analysed by Professor Ruth Annand sitting as the Appointed Person in SdS InvestCorp AG v Memory Opticians Ltd (O/528/15).
[218] …
219. I would now summarise the principles for the assessment of whether there has been genuine use of a trade mark established by the case law of the Court of Justice, which also includes Case C-442/07 Verein Radetsky—Order v Bundervsvereinigung Kamaradschaft 'Feldmarschall Radetsky' [2008] ECR I-9223 and Case C-609/11 Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co KG [EU:C:2013:592], [2014] ETMR 7, as follows:
(1) Genuine use means actual use of the trade mark by the proprietor or by a third party with authority to use the mark: Ansul at [35] and [37].
(2) The use must be more than merely token, that is to say, serving solely to preserve the rights conferred by the registration of the mark: Ansul at [36]; Sunrider at [70]; Verein at [13]; Centrotherm at [71]; Leno at [29].
(3) The use must be consistent with the essential function of a trade mark, which is to guarantee the identity of the origin of the goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin: Ansul at [36]; Sunrider at [70]; Verein at [13]; Silberquelle at [17]; Centrotherm at [71]; Leno at [29].
(4) Use of the mark must relate to goods or services which are already marketed or which are about to be marketed and for which preparations to secure customers are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd
...passage from the judgment of Daniel Alexander QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in Abanka dd v Abanca Corporación SA [2017] EWHC 2428 (Ch), [2018] Bus LR 612 in which he concluded at [103]: “Put colloquially, a proprietor should be treated as having used a mark in the UK if it has i......
-
Walton International Ltd v Verweij Fashion BV
...such evidence exists.” 113 In a judgment delivered between argument and judgment in Merck v Merck, Abanka dd v Abanca Corporación SA [2017] EWHC 2428 (Ch), [2018] Bus LR 612, Daniel Alexander QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge made some illuminating observations which in my judgment ......
-
Easygroup Ltd v Easyway SBH (a company incorporated under the laws of St Barthelemy)
...number of visits made to the website by consumers in the UK.” 26 The Defendants drew my attention to Abanka dd v Abanca Corporation [2017] EWHC 2428 (Ch), Daniel Alexander QC at [102]–[103] and Walton v Verweij [2018] EWHC 1608 (Ch) at [111]–[113], [144] Arnold J, as he then was. These we......
-
Abanka D.D v Abanca Corporación Bancaria S.A.
...trade mark registrations nos 860632 and 860561, in the United Kingdom in the relevant period, was handed down on 6 October 2017 ( [2017] EWHC 2428 (Ch)). I gave the parties a period of time to resolve the allowable specification in the light of that judgment. The parties have proposed spec......