Accurate
Country-specific legal content
Drafted with legal expertise for each jurisdiction, far more thorough than AI-generated drafts that copy generic clauses across borders.
Intellectual PropertyUnited Kingdom
Free Form TM26(N) — UK Trade Mark Revocation (Non-Use) Template
Form TM26(N) is the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office form for applying to revoke a registered UK trade mark on the ground of non-use under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Our free United Kingdom template builds a structured revocation application the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate quickly — applicant identity and agent details with a compliant UK address for service, the registered mark targeted (registration number, proprietor, classes), the non-use claim under section 46(1)(a) or section 46(1)(b) with the relevant five-year window, the evidence basis (market research + due diligence sources), the relief sought (full or partial revocation with effective date) and four Expert clauses on the London Taxi genuine-use threshold, the Stichting BDO + Specsavers partial-revocation framework, the section 46(2) proper-reasons defence rebuttal and the section 47 invalidity counterclaim cross-link strategy.
Free to useInstant PDFNo account required
PDF (free) + editable Word (.docx) with Expert
Form TM26(N) — Application for Revocation (Non-Use)
Trade Marks Act 1994 Section 46 + Trade Marks Rules 2008 · 9 June 2026
TO: Intellectual Property Office
Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP10 8QQ
RE: Application for revocation on the ground of non-use against UK trade mark registration no. UK00002418905 in the name of Hightor Sports Trading Limited
This application is made under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 for revocation of the registered trade mark identified below on the ground that genuine use has not been made of the mark across the registered specification for the relevant continuous five-year period. The non-use basis, the relevant five-year window, the evidence basis and the relief sought are set out below. Once the application is filed the burden of proving genuine use shifts to the proprietor under section 100 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport, NP10 8QQ
RE: Application for revocation on the ground of non-use against UK trade mark registration no. UK00002418905 in the name of Hightor Sports Trading Limited
This application is made under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 for revocation of the registered trade mark identified below on the ground that genuine use has not been made of the mark across the registered specification for the relevant continuous five-year period. The non-use basis, the relevant five-year window, the evidence basis and the relief sought are set out below. Once the application is filed the burden of proving genuine use shifts to the proprietor under section 100 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
1. APPLICANT PARTICULARS
| APPLICANT NAME | Caldera Outdoor Apparel Limited |
| APPLICANT ADDRESS | 88 Innerleithen Road, Edinburgh EH9 3LD |
| TELEPHONE | 0131 555 0218 |
| legal@calderaoutdoor.co.uk | |
| AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE | Tarrant Steele IP Solicitors LLP |
| AGENT ADDRESS | 1 Mappin Gate, Manchester M1 4FN |
| AGENT REFERENCE | TS-2026-CDA-TM26N-091 |
| ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM | Tarrant Steele IP Solicitors LLP, 1 Mappin Gate, Manchester M1 4FN |
2. REGISTERED MARK TARGETED FOR REVOCATION
| REGISTRATION NUMBER | UK00002418905 |
| PROPRIETOR NAME | Hightor Sports Trading Limited |
| PROPRIETOR ADDRESS | 24 Greycoat Way, Birmingham B3 2AB |
| REGISTERED MARK TEXT AND DESCRIPTION | CALDERA (word mark in standard characters, registered in classes 18, 25 and 28 covering bags, rucksacks, outdoor clothing, footwear, headgear, climbing equipment, camping equipment and related accessories). |
| REGISTRATION DATE | 14 November 2008 |
| REGISTERED CLASSES | 18, 25, 28 |
3. NON-USE CLAIM.
(a) Non-use basis relied on: Section 46(1)(b) — uninterrupted suspension of genuine use across a continuous five-year period after use commenced
(b) Relevant five-year window: from 30 May 2021 to 30 May 2026.
(c) Goods or services for which non-use is claimed:
All goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 covered by the registered specification. The applicant relies on the absence of genuine use across the entire specification during the continuous five-year window ending on 30 May 2026.
(d) Effect of section 100 of the Trade Marks Act 1994: the burden of proving genuine use across the registered specification falls on the proprietor. The applicant relies on the absence of genuine use evidence and on the market research and due-diligence sources set out below.
(a) Non-use basis relied on: Section 46(1)(b) — uninterrupted suspension of genuine use across a continuous five-year period after use commenced
(b) Relevant five-year window: from 30 May 2021 to 30 May 2026.
(c) Goods or services for which non-use is claimed:
All goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 covered by the registered specification. The applicant relies on the absence of genuine use across the entire specification during the continuous five-year window ending on 30 May 2026.
(d) Effect of section 100 of the Trade Marks Act 1994: the burden of proving genuine use across the registered specification falls on the proprietor. The applicant relies on the absence of genuine use evidence and on the market research and due-diligence sources set out below.
4. EVIDENCE BASIS.
(a) Market research summary:
Independent market research conducted by Outdoor Trade Insights (a recognised trade publication) on behalf of the applicant in March 2026 returned no instances of CALDERA-branded goods in nineteen UK national outdoor retailers, ten regional independent retailers, eight online specialist retailers and the proprietor own e-commerce platform during the five-year window 2021-2026. The proprietor United Kingdom website (calderaoutdoor.co.uk) has been redirected to a holding page since November 2020. Companies House filings for Hightor Sports Trading Limited disclose no turnover attributable to the CALDERA brand across the relevant period.
(b) Due-diligence sources relied on:
Due diligence sources relied on: (i) Outdoor Trade Insights market survey March 2026; (ii) Wayback Machine archive search confirming the holding-page status of the proprietor website continuously from November 2020; (iii) Companies House filings 2021-2026 for Hightor Sports Trading Limited disclosing no CALDERA-attributable revenue; (iv) Google Shopping listing absence verified across the five-year window; (v) trade-show exhibitor lists for the OutDoor by ISPO, the British Outdoor Industries Association annual show and the Camping and Caravanning Show 2021-2026 disclosing no CALDERA appearance; (vi) ASIN search on Amazon.co.uk returning no current CALDERA listings under the proprietor identifier.
The applicant does not bear the burden of establishing non-use to a high standard. The TM26(N) application puts the proprietor to proof and the applicant relies on the absence of public evidence of genuine use across the registered specification.
(a) Market research summary:
Independent market research conducted by Outdoor Trade Insights (a recognised trade publication) on behalf of the applicant in March 2026 returned no instances of CALDERA-branded goods in nineteen UK national outdoor retailers, ten regional independent retailers, eight online specialist retailers and the proprietor own e-commerce platform during the five-year window 2021-2026. The proprietor United Kingdom website (calderaoutdoor.co.uk) has been redirected to a holding page since November 2020. Companies House filings for Hightor Sports Trading Limited disclose no turnover attributable to the CALDERA brand across the relevant period.
(b) Due-diligence sources relied on:
Due diligence sources relied on: (i) Outdoor Trade Insights market survey March 2026; (ii) Wayback Machine archive search confirming the holding-page status of the proprietor website continuously from November 2020; (iii) Companies House filings 2021-2026 for Hightor Sports Trading Limited disclosing no CALDERA-attributable revenue; (iv) Google Shopping listing absence verified across the five-year window; (v) trade-show exhibitor lists for the OutDoor by ISPO, the British Outdoor Industries Association annual show and the Camping and Caravanning Show 2021-2026 disclosing no CALDERA appearance; (vi) ASIN search on Amazon.co.uk returning no current CALDERA listings under the proprietor identifier.
The applicant does not bear the burden of establishing non-use to a high standard. The TM26(N) application puts the proprietor to proof and the applicant relies on the absence of public evidence of genuine use across the registered specification.
5. RELIEF SOUGHT.
(a) Scope of relief: Full revocation of the mark across the entire registered specification.
(b) Effective date of revocation sought: 30 May 2021. Where this date is earlier than the application date, the applicant requests revocation effective from this earlier date by reference to which the proprietor cannot show genuine use.
(a) Scope of relief: Full revocation of the mark across the entire registered specification.
(b) Effective date of revocation sought: 30 May 2021. Where this date is earlier than the application date, the applicant requests revocation effective from this earlier date by reference to which the proprietor cannot show genuine use.
6. GENUINE USE THRESHOLD — LONDON TAXI FRAMEWORK.
London Taxi Corporation v Frazer-Nash Research [2017] EWCA Civ 1729 confirmed that the genuine use threshold requires actual use in the relevant market consistent with the essential function of a trade mark — to guarantee the identity of origin. Token use, internal use and use solely to preserve the registration are excluded. The quality, frequency, volume and commercial scale of the use are assessed against the relevant market context. Walton v Verweij [2024] EWHC 1672 (IPEC) is the recent IPEC authority confirming that minimal or sporadic use across a niche of the market may suffice for that niche but does not protect the registration outside it.
(a) Quality assessment of any anticipated use:
Any use the proprietor may attempt to advance falls below the genuine use threshold. There is no evidence of any market exposure during the five-year window — no retail listings, no advertising, no trade-show presence and no consumer-facing website. Any internal use, ceremonial use or use confined to sample-room or product-development contexts cannot satisfy the essential function of a trade mark under London Taxi Corporation v Frazer-Nash Research [2017] EWCA Civ 1729.
(b) Frequency assessment:
There is no documented frequency of use. The Wayback Machine archive confirms continuous holding-page status of the proprietor website throughout the five-year window. The trade-show absence and the negative market survey results corroborate the absence of any frequency of use. Walton v Verweij [2024] EWHC 1672 (IPEC) confirms even minimal use must be capable of identification in the relevant market — that threshold is not met.
(c) Volume assessment:
No volume of sales is evidenced. The Companies House filings for the proprietor disclose no CALDERA-attributable revenue across the five-year window. There is no evidence of distribution into any UK retail channel. The volume position weighs heavily against the proprietor genuine use case.
(d) Token use position:
In the event the proprietor seeks to rely on token sales, internal sample distribution, single-order trade fulfilments or distress launches in the closing months of the window, the applicant relies on London Taxi to demonstrate such use falls short of the genuine use threshold. The essential function of a trade mark requires market-facing use that guarantees identity of origin to the average consumer — not internal stockroom movement.
London Taxi Corporation v Frazer-Nash Research [2017] EWCA Civ 1729 confirmed that the genuine use threshold requires actual use in the relevant market consistent with the essential function of a trade mark — to guarantee the identity of origin. Token use, internal use and use solely to preserve the registration are excluded. The quality, frequency, volume and commercial scale of the use are assessed against the relevant market context. Walton v Verweij [2024] EWHC 1672 (IPEC) is the recent IPEC authority confirming that minimal or sporadic use across a niche of the market may suffice for that niche but does not protect the registration outside it.
(a) Quality assessment of any anticipated use:
Any use the proprietor may attempt to advance falls below the genuine use threshold. There is no evidence of any market exposure during the five-year window — no retail listings, no advertising, no trade-show presence and no consumer-facing website. Any internal use, ceremonial use or use confined to sample-room or product-development contexts cannot satisfy the essential function of a trade mark under London Taxi Corporation v Frazer-Nash Research [2017] EWCA Civ 1729.
(b) Frequency assessment:
There is no documented frequency of use. The Wayback Machine archive confirms continuous holding-page status of the proprietor website throughout the five-year window. The trade-show absence and the negative market survey results corroborate the absence of any frequency of use. Walton v Verweij [2024] EWHC 1672 (IPEC) confirms even minimal use must be capable of identification in the relevant market — that threshold is not met.
(c) Volume assessment:
No volume of sales is evidenced. The Companies House filings for the proprietor disclose no CALDERA-attributable revenue across the five-year window. There is no evidence of distribution into any UK retail channel. The volume position weighs heavily against the proprietor genuine use case.
(d) Token use position:
In the event the proprietor seeks to rely on token sales, internal sample distribution, single-order trade fulfilments or distress launches in the closing months of the window, the applicant relies on London Taxi to demonstrate such use falls short of the genuine use threshold. The essential function of a trade mark requires market-facing use that guarantees identity of origin to the average consumer — not internal stockroom movement.
7. PARTIAL REVOCATION — STICHTING BDO AND SPECSAVERS FRAMEWORK.
Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank [2013] EWHC 418 and Specsavers v Asda [2014] EWHC 1339 (Ch) confirm that the registered specification is sub-divided into coherent sub-categories reflecting actual use; categories where no genuine use is shown are revoked. The sub-categorisation is conducted from the perspective of the average consumer with regard to the essential characteristics of the goods or services.
(a) Sub-category analysis:
The registered specification across classes 18, 25 and 28 breaks down from the average consumer perspective into coherent commercial sub-categories: class 18 splits into (a) bags and rucksacks (b) leather goods and (c) related accessories; class 25 splits into (a) outerwear, (b) base-layer and technical clothing, (c) footwear and (d) headgear; class 28 splits into (a) climbing equipment and (b) camping equipment. Each sub-category is a distinct commercial offering with its own retail channels, manufacturing partners and consumer-targeting profile.
(b) Specification retained (where genuine use accepted):
On the evidence currently available the applicant does not accept that any sub-category survives. The case is for full revocation. However, in the event the proprietor adduces evidence of genuine use in a single sub-category, the applicant will respect that sub-category in the final relief and apply Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank [2013] EWHC 418 and Specsavers v Asda [2014] EWHC 1339 (Ch) sub-categorisation accordingly.
(c) Specification revoked (no genuine use):
On the evidence currently available the applicant seeks revocation of the registered specification in its entirety — all goods in classes 18, 25 and 28. Each sub-category fails the genuine use threshold across the five-year window.
Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank [2013] EWHC 418 and Specsavers v Asda [2014] EWHC 1339 (Ch) confirm that the registered specification is sub-divided into coherent sub-categories reflecting actual use; categories where no genuine use is shown are revoked. The sub-categorisation is conducted from the perspective of the average consumer with regard to the essential characteristics of the goods or services.
(a) Sub-category analysis:
The registered specification across classes 18, 25 and 28 breaks down from the average consumer perspective into coherent commercial sub-categories: class 18 splits into (a) bags and rucksacks (b) leather goods and (c) related accessories; class 25 splits into (a) outerwear, (b) base-layer and technical clothing, (c) footwear and (d) headgear; class 28 splits into (a) climbing equipment and (b) camping equipment. Each sub-category is a distinct commercial offering with its own retail channels, manufacturing partners and consumer-targeting profile.
(b) Specification retained (where genuine use accepted):
On the evidence currently available the applicant does not accept that any sub-category survives. The case is for full revocation. However, in the event the proprietor adduces evidence of genuine use in a single sub-category, the applicant will respect that sub-category in the final relief and apply Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank [2013] EWHC 418 and Specsavers v Asda [2014] EWHC 1339 (Ch) sub-categorisation accordingly.
(c) Specification revoked (no genuine use):
On the evidence currently available the applicant seeks revocation of the registered specification in its entirety — all goods in classes 18, 25 and 28. Each sub-category fails the genuine use threshold across the five-year window.
8. PROPER REASONS DEFENCE REBUTTAL (SECTION 46(2)).
Section 46(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides a defence where the proprietor can show proper reasons for the non-use. The reasons must be obstacles external to the proprietor — government action, import restrictions or genuine commercial impossibility. Internal commercial decisions, marketing-strategy reviews and self-imposed product-line freezes do not qualify as proper reasons.
(a) Anticipated proprietor defence:
The applicant anticipates the proprietor may advance one of three lines of defence: (i) that an industry-wide outdoor-retail downturn during 2021-2022 amounts to proper reasons under section 46(2); (ii) that an internal restructuring of the proprietor business amounts to proper reasons; (iii) that residual sample-room and product-development activity throughout the period amounts to genuine use. The applicant has prepared rebuttals to each line.
(b) External obstacle rebuttal:
Any reliance on the outdoor-retail downturn fails — the downturn affected the entire market but other CALDERA-segment competitors continued to trade with measurable growth. The proprietor was not facing a unique external obstacle but a common market condition. Proper reasons under section 46(2) require an obstacle that operated against the proprietor specifically; market downturn shared with the entire industry does not qualify.
(c) Internal decision position:
The proprietor reliance on internal restructuring as proper reasons is misconceived. The long-standing authority is that internal commercial decisions, marketing-strategy reviews and self-imposed product-line freezes do not qualify as proper reasons under section 46(2). The proper reasons defence is reserved for obstacles external to the proprietor. The applicant relies on the IPEC and the EUIPO Boards of Appeal jurisprudence on this point.
Section 46(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides a defence where the proprietor can show proper reasons for the non-use. The reasons must be obstacles external to the proprietor — government action, import restrictions or genuine commercial impossibility. Internal commercial decisions, marketing-strategy reviews and self-imposed product-line freezes do not qualify as proper reasons.
(a) Anticipated proprietor defence:
The applicant anticipates the proprietor may advance one of three lines of defence: (i) that an industry-wide outdoor-retail downturn during 2021-2022 amounts to proper reasons under section 46(2); (ii) that an internal restructuring of the proprietor business amounts to proper reasons; (iii) that residual sample-room and product-development activity throughout the period amounts to genuine use. The applicant has prepared rebuttals to each line.
(b) External obstacle rebuttal:
Any reliance on the outdoor-retail downturn fails — the downturn affected the entire market but other CALDERA-segment competitors continued to trade with measurable growth. The proprietor was not facing a unique external obstacle but a common market condition. Proper reasons under section 46(2) require an obstacle that operated against the proprietor specifically; market downturn shared with the entire industry does not qualify.
(c) Internal decision position:
The proprietor reliance on internal restructuring as proper reasons is misconceived. The long-standing authority is that internal commercial decisions, marketing-strategy reviews and self-imposed product-line freezes do not qualify as proper reasons under section 46(2). The proper reasons defence is reserved for obstacles external to the proprietor. The applicant relies on the IPEC and the EUIPO Boards of Appeal jurisprudence on this point.
9. SECTION 47 INVALIDITY COUNTERCLAIM — COMBINED STRATEGY.
Where the applicant has parallel grounds for invalidity under section 47 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (relative grounds under section 5 or absolute grounds under section 3), the TM26(N) revocation application can be combined with a TM26(I) invalidity application. The combined attack is often the most efficient route where both non-use and invalidity are available — the proprietor must defend on both fronts simultaneously and the registry can determine both in a single hearing.
(a) Invalidity grounds available:
The applicant has identified parallel grounds for invalidity under section 47 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The CALDERA registration of 14 November 2008 was filed before the applicant CALDERA registration of 12 February 2010 but at the time of the proprietor filing the applicant predecessor business was using CALDERA as a trading style and had goodwill enforceable by passing-off. The applicant has prepared an invalidity case under section 47(2) cross-referenced to section 5(4)(a) earlier passing-off rights.
(b) Combined strategy rationale:
The applicant has elected to file the TM26(N) revocation application first. Should the proprietor fail to produce genuine use evidence sufficient to defeat revocation, the registration will be revoked and the priority position will fall back on the applicant own registration of 12 February 2010 without need to proceed to invalidity. Should the proprietor produce sufficient evidence to retain part of the specification on partial revocation, the applicant will then file a parallel TM26(I) invalidity application focused on the surviving sub-categories. The combined strategy is the most efficient route and the costs anchor is set accordingly.
Where the applicant has parallel grounds for invalidity under section 47 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (relative grounds under section 5 or absolute grounds under section 3), the TM26(N) revocation application can be combined with a TM26(I) invalidity application. The combined attack is often the most efficient route where both non-use and invalidity are available — the proprietor must defend on both fronts simultaneously and the registry can determine both in a single hearing.
(a) Invalidity grounds available:
The applicant has identified parallel grounds for invalidity under section 47 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The CALDERA registration of 14 November 2008 was filed before the applicant CALDERA registration of 12 February 2010 but at the time of the proprietor filing the applicant predecessor business was using CALDERA as a trading style and had goodwill enforceable by passing-off. The applicant has prepared an invalidity case under section 47(2) cross-referenced to section 5(4)(a) earlier passing-off rights.
(b) Combined strategy rationale:
The applicant has elected to file the TM26(N) revocation application first. Should the proprietor fail to produce genuine use evidence sufficient to defeat revocation, the registration will be revoked and the priority position will fall back on the applicant own registration of 12 February 2010 without need to proceed to invalidity. Should the proprietor produce sufficient evidence to retain part of the specification on partial revocation, the applicant will then file a parallel TM26(I) invalidity application focused on the surviving sub-categories. The combined strategy is the most efficient route and the costs anchor is set accordingly.
10. STATEMENT OF TRUTH. The applicant believes that the facts stated in this application are true. The applicant confirms that the address for service is in the United Kingdom and that the applicant or its representative is authorised to receive correspondence at that address. The applicant understands that the application will be served on the proprietor and that the proprietor will be required to file evidence of genuine use within the period prescribed by rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008.
APPLICANT
Tarrant Steele IP Solicitors LLP
Authorised representative
Caldera Outdoor Apparel Limited
Date: ____________________
Available as a print-ready PDF or an editable Microsoft Word (.docx) file.
What Is a Form TM26(N) Revocation Application?
Form TM26(N) is the prescribed United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office form for applying to revoke a registered UK trade mark on the ground of non-use. Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 permits any person to apply for revocation. Section 46(1)(a) covers the position where the mark has not been put to genuine use during the continuous five-year period following completion of the registration procedure. Section 46(1)(b) covers the position where genuine use has been suspended for an uninterrupted continuous five-year period after use commenced. The application is filed at the UKIPO and decided by a Hearing Officer applying the established revocation framework.
The critical procedural point is the section 100 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 burden-of-proof shift. Once a properly particularised TM26(N) is filed, the burden of proving genuine use of the registered mark shifts to the proprietor. The applicant evidence threshold is therefore low — the application focus shifts immediately to whether the proprietor can come forward with evidence of genuine use across the registered specification. London Taxi Corporation v Frazer-Nash Research [2017] EWCA Civ 1729 is the leading United Kingdom Court of Appeal authority on the genuine-use threshold — actual market-facing use consistent with the essential function of a trade mark, not token use or internal use.
Walton v Verweij [2024] EWHC 1672 (IPEC) is the most recent UK IPEC authority on the genuine-use threshold confirming that minimal or sporadic use across a niche of the market may suffice for that niche but does not protect the registration outside it. Where the registered specification is broader than the proven use, partial revocation under Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank [2013] EWHC 418 and Specsavers v Asda [2014] EWHC 1339 (Ch) applies — the specification is sub-divided into coherent sub-categories reflecting actual use and the categories where no genuine use is shown are revoked. The TM26(N) thus operates as both a clearance route for new applicants and an enforcement tool against dormant registrations across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
What's Covered in This Template
Our United Kingdom Form TM26(N) template builds a structured revocation application the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate quickly — applicant identity, mark targeted, non-use claim, evidence basis, relief sought and four Expert clauses on genuine use, partial revocation, proper-reasons rebuttal and the section 47 counterclaim strategy.
TMA 1994 Section 46 + Rule 38 Procedure
Engages the United Kingdom statutory framework permitting revocation of a registered mark on the ground of non-use under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Form TM26(N) procedure under rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008.
Section 46(1)(a) Post-Registration Non-Use
Covers the position where the mark has not been put to genuine use during the continuous five-year period following completion of the registration procedure in the United Kingdom Trade Marks Journal.
Section 46(1)(b) Suspension of Use
Covers the position where genuine use has been suspended for an uninterrupted continuous five-year period at any time after use commenced — applies to once-used marks that have lapsed in the market.
Section 100 Burden-of-Proof Shift
Engages the Trade Marks Act 1994 section 100 — the burden of proving genuine use across the registered specification falls on the proprietor once the TM26(N) is filed.
London Taxi Genuine-Use Threshold (Expert)
Expert clause applies London Taxi Corporation v Frazer-Nash Research [2017] EWCA Civ 1729 to the genuine-use threshold — market-facing use, not token or internal use, and the Walton v Verweij IPEC [2024] niche-use sufficiency framework.
Stichting BDO + Specsavers Partial Revocation (Expert)
Expert clause applies Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank [2013] EWHC 418 and Specsavers v Asda [2014] EWHC 1339 (Ch) to sub-divide the registered specification into coherent sub-categories from the average consumer perspective.
Section 46(2) Proper-Reasons Rebuttal (Expert)
Expert clause rebuts the section 46(2) proper-reasons defence — external obstacles such as government action or import restrictions qualify, internal commercial decisions and self-imposed product-line freezes do not.
Section 47 Counterclaim Cross-Link (Expert)
Expert clause sets the combined-attack strategy where parallel invalidity grounds under section 47 are available — relative grounds under section 5 or absolute grounds under section 3 alongside the non-use revocation.
Effective Date of Revocation
Records the effective date of revocation sought — typically the earlier of the application date or any date specified by reference to which the proprietor cannot show genuine use. The earlier date is significant for subsequent priority.
Three Non-Use Bases
Supports three statutory bases for the non-use claim — section 46(1)(a) alone, section 46(1)(b) alone or both bases relying on distinct five-year windows. The basis drives the evidence collection strategy.
Concept House Newport Filing Address
The UKIPO postal address is set to Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ; online filing via the One IPO digital service is also available across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
How to File a Form TM26(N) Revocation Application
Follow these steps to produce a structured Form TM26(N) the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate within the trade marks register procedure across the United Kingdom.
- 1
Confirm the Five-Year Window Exists
The TM26(N) is available only where the registered mark has completed the five-year non-use window. Identify the registration date and confirm the five-year period has run. Where the mark is younger than five years, revocation under section 46 is not available.
- 2
Identify the Mark Precisely
Record the UK registration number (UK00 prefix + unique sequence), the proprietor name as shown on the register, the registered mark text or description and the registered Nice classes. The registry will validate the registration number on filing.
- 3
Choose the Non-Use Basis
Section 46(1)(a) for non-use during the continuous five-year period following registration. Section 46(1)(b) for suspension of use during any continuous five-year window after use commenced. Both bases where distinct windows of non-use exist. The basis drives the evidence collection.
- 4
Build the Evidence Basis
Document the market research relied on — retailer surveys, online platform searches, trade-show absence, distribution channel checks. List the due-diligence sources — Wayback Machine archives, Companies House filings, Google Shopping listings, social-media absence, ASIN searches. The applicant burden is low but a properly particularised claim avoids strike-out at the proprietor pleading stage.
- 5
Decide the Relief Scope
Full revocation across the entire registered specification or partial revocation across specified goods or services. Set the effective date of revocation — typically the earlier of the application date or any date by reference to which the proprietor cannot show genuine use. The earlier date is significant for subsequent priority rights.
- 6
Build the Expert Clauses (London Taxi / Specsavers / Proper Reasons / Counterclaim)
The four Expert clauses build the substantive case: (i) London Taxi genuine-use threshold across quality / frequency / volume; (ii) Stichting BDO + Specsavers partial revocation by sub-category; (iii) section 46(2) proper-reasons rebuttal addressing external vs internal obstacles; (iv) section 47 invalidity counterclaim cross-link strategy.
- 7
Confirm the UK Address for Service
The address for service must be in the United Kingdom under the post-Brexit regime — either the applicant address or the agent / representative address. Applications filed without a UK address for service will be returned by the registry.
- 8
File with the UKIPO
File the Form TM26(N) with the UKIPO at Concept House, Cardiff Road, Newport NP10 8QQ or via the One IPO digital service. The registry will serve the application on the proprietor and the proprietor will be required to file evidence of genuine use within the rule 38 prescribed period.
Why Doxuno documents are different
Four things that make our templates more thorough than AI-generated drafts and more current than static template libraries.
Always current
Always current with the law
Templates carrying statute references are continuously updated as the law changes. Your document always reflects the current legal framework.
Free PDF
Print-ready PDF
Free to download. Vector text, embedded fonts, statute citations baked in. Print, sign, file. Ready for any signing flow including electronic signature.
Word · .docx
Editable Word (.docx)
Continue editing in Word after download. Add custom clauses, reuse the template for similar agreements, or share with a colleague for collaborative review.
Requires Expert one-time unlock or any paid Doxuno subscription.
Legal Considerations — Form TM26(N) Revocation
Form TM26(N) revocation applications in the United Kingdom are governed by section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and rule 38 of the Trade Marks Rules 2008 (SI 2008/1797). The framework operates the same across all UK trade mark registrations regardless of the proprietor location.
This template is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. UK trade mark revocation proceedings are technical and turn on the specific evidence of genuine use that the proprietor can adduce and on the proper-reasons defence (where engaged). Specialist Chartered Trade Mark Attorneys and intellectual property solicitors regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority advise on contested revocation proceedings across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Reviewed for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)
Statutory Framework — TMA 1994 Section 46 + Section 100
Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 permits any person to apply for the revocation of a registered trade mark on the ground of non-use. Section 46(1)(a) covers post-registration non-use during the continuous five-year period following completion of the registration procedure. Section 46(1)(b) covers the suspension of genuine use across any uninterrupted continuous five-year period after use commenced. Section 100 places the burden of proving genuine use on the proprietor — once the TM26(N) is filed the proprietor must come forward with evidence of genuine use across the registered specification. The Trade Marks Rules 2008 (SI 2008/1797) rule 38 governs the procedure across the United Kingdom Trade Marks Registry.
London Taxi v Frazer-Nash — Genuine Use Threshold
London Taxi Corporation v Frazer-Nash Research [2017] EWCA Civ 1729 is the leading United Kingdom Court of Appeal authority on the genuine-use threshold. The Court of Appeal confirmed that genuine use requires actual market-facing use consistent with the essential function of a trade mark — to guarantee the identity of origin to the average consumer. Token use, internal use, sample-room use and use solely to preserve the registration are excluded. The quality, frequency and volume of the use are assessed against the relevant market context across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Walton v Verweij — Recent IPEC Authority
Walton v Verweij [2024] EWHC 1672 (IPEC) is the most recent IPEC authority on the genuine-use threshold. The judgment confirmed that minimal or sporadic use across a niche of the market may suffice for that niche but does not protect the registration outside it. The decision has guided the partial-revocation framework in recent UKIPO Hearing Officer decisions and reinforced the Stichting BDO + Specsavers sub-categorisation approach.
Partial Revocation — Stichting BDO + Specsavers
Stichting BDO v BDO Unibank [2013] EWHC 418 and Specsavers v Asda [2014] EWHC 1339 (Ch) confirmed the partial revocation framework. The registered specification is sub-divided into coherent sub-categories reflecting actual use; categories where no genuine use is shown are revoked. The sub-categorisation is conducted from the perspective of the average consumer with regard to the essential characteristics of the goods or services. The framework is the principal route for revocation where the proprietor can demonstrate use in some sub-categories but not across the entire registered specification.
Section 46(2) Proper Reasons Defence
Section 46(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides a defence where the proprietor can show proper reasons for the non-use. The reasons must be obstacles external to the proprietor — government action, import restrictions or genuine commercial impossibility. Internal commercial decisions, marketing-strategy reviews and self-imposed product-line freezes do not qualify as proper reasons. The proper-reasons defence is narrow and the IPEC and the UKIPO Hearing Officer decisions confirm the high threshold for the defence to succeed across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Section 47 Invalidity Counterclaim Cross-Link
Where the applicant has parallel grounds for invalidity under section 47 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (relative or absolute grounds), the TM26(N) revocation application can be combined with a TM26(I) invalidity application. The combined attack is often the most efficient route — the proprietor must defend on both fronts simultaneously and the registry can determine both in a single hearing. The strategic election between sequential and combined attack turns on the strength of the respective grounds and the costs anchor sought across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Frequently Asked Questions
Build Your TM26(N) Revocation Application
Produce a structured revocation application the UKIPO Hearing Officer can validate quickly — applicant identity and agent details with a compliant UK address for service, the registered mark targeted by registration number and Nice classes, the non-use claim under section 46(1)(a) or section 46(1)(b) with the relevant five-year window, the evidence basis from market research and due diligence sources, the relief sought (full or partial revocation with effective date) and four Expert clauses on the London Taxi genuine-use threshold, the Stichting BDO + Specsavers partial-revocation framework, the section 46(2) proper-reasons defence rebuttal and the section 47 invalidity counterclaim cross-link strategy. Drafted under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Rules 2008 across the United Kingdom trade mark system.
Free PDF · Editable Word with Expert · No account required