BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> CABC TEAM LOTUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o21098 (23 October 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o21098.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o21098

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


CABC TEAM LOTUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o21098 (23 October 1998)

For the whole decision click here: o21098

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/210/98
Decision date
23 October 1998
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
CABC TEAM LOTUS
Classes
35
Applicant
Team Lotus Ventures Ltd
Opponent
Group Lotus Ltd
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) 5(4)(a)(b) & 3(6)

Result

Section 5(4)(b) - Opposition successful

Section 3(6) - Opposition successful

Section 5(4)(a) - Not considered

Section 5(2) - Not decided

Section 5(3) - Not decided

Points Of Interest

Summary

In this case the opponents request to amend the grounds of opposition was by way of adding an additional ground under Section 5(1) of the Act. The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of an earlier registration for the mark BIKE HART in respect of identical goods to those within the specification of the applicants application and they wished to argue that identical marks and identical goods were at issue (Section 5(1)). The request to amend was made more than twelve months after the filing of the opposition.

The applicants opposed the request on the basis that there had been a delay in making the request and also because they submitted that it was clear that the respective marks OLD BIKE MART and BIKE MART were not identical in the context of Section 5(1).

Allowing the amendment the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had filed their request as soon as the matter had come to their attention. Additionally he did not believe that they had an unarguable case in the context of Section 5(1).



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o21098.html