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 >> 3D SHAPE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o06500 (23 February 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o06500.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o6500, [2000] UKIntelP o06500

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


3D SHAPE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o06500 (23 February 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o06500

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/065/00
Decision date
23 February 2000
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
3D SHAPE
Classes
29
Applicants
KLP Limited
Opponents
MD Foods AMBA
Opposition
Sections 3(1)(a); 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 3(2)(c); 3(3)(a); 3(3)(b) and 3(4)

Result

Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed

Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition successful

Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition successful

Section 3(2)(c) - Opposition failed

Section 3(3)(a) - Opposition failed

Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 3(4) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents offered no evidence as to why the mark could not function as a trade mark; the Hearing Officer could not say now that the applicants would never be able to educate the public to regard the mark as a trade mark denoting only their goods or services. The opposition under Section 3(1)(a) failed accordingly.

In the light of the evidence the Hearing Officer accepted that the shape alluded to a characteristic of the goods and hence, prima facie, was not distinctive. The opposition under Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) succeeded therefore.

The shape did not give the goods their substantive value; Section 3(2)(c) opposition failed.

The opposition under Sections 3(3) and 3(4) also failed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o06500.html