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 >> MISCELLANEOUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o11400 (23 March 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o11400.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o11400

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


MISCELLANEOUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o11400 (23 March 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o11400

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/114/00
Decision date
23 March 2000
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
MISCELLANEOUS
Classes
03
Applicant
Goldenglow International
Opponent
Slim Images Ltd
Opposition
Sections 1(1), 3(1) & 5(2)(b) and 39

Result

Sections 1(1) & 3(1)(a) - Opposition dismissed

Section 3(1)(d) - Opposition dismissed

Sections 3(1)(b) & 3(1)(c) - Opposition successful

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful

Section 39 - Opposition dismissed

Points Of Interest

Summary

In considering the opposition under Section 39, the Hearing Officer explained that, following examination by the Trade Marks Registry, the description of the mark was clarified to identify the colours show in an accompanying colour photograph as "yellow and red" rather than "orange and yellow". The opponent contended that this affected the identify of the mark, but it was held that although the colours specified in the description had changed, those on the photograph had not, so that after clarification the mark was the same as that for which registration was originally sought. Opposition under Section 39 was therefore dismissed.

In other respects, the decision is identical with SRIS O/113/00, except that the Hearing Officer also found that the applicant's claim to honest concurrent use was not substantiated by the evidence.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o11400.html