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 >> CLEAR CAB (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o26699 (2 August 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o26699.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o26699

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


CLEAR CAB (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o26699 (2 August 1999)

For the whole decision click here: o26699

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/266/99
Decision date
2 August 1999
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
CLEAR CAB
Classes
12, 39
Applicants
In Secure Ltd
Opponents
CareCab Ltd
Opposition
Sections 3(1), 3(3)(b), 3(4), 3(6) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3: - Opposition dismissed (all grounds).

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

Opposition based on the opponent’s claimed use of the trade mark CARECAB, notably in respect of the manufacture and sale of vehicles adapted for transporting elderly and disabled people. The Hearing Officer proceeded to regard the main ground of opposition as arising under Section 5(4)(a), dismissing briefly the grounds raised under Section 3 for want of supporting evidence or argument, and as misconceived in the case of grounds raised under Sections 3(3)(b) and 3(4).

Having reviewed recent authorities on the law of passing off as applicable to situations (as in the case of the opponent) where preparations for trading under a mark have been undertaken, though no actual sales had taken place, the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the opponent had in fact established any goodwill under its mark.

He then observed that even if he had been persuaded otherwise, the opponent would still have had difficulty in persuading him that use of the mark in suit would lead to misrepresentation and damage, given the differences between marks and the nature of the respective goods and services involved. Opposition under Section 5(4)(a) accordingly failed



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o26699.html