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!
 |
[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 >> CAREMIX (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o24400 (13 July 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o24400.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o24400 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o24400
Result
Section 39 - Opposition successful
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants applied to register the mark CAREMIX in Class 7 on 15March1997 for "Valves; valves for use in water circulation; blending valves; and all other goods in this Class. Later on 11 April 1997 the applicants requested deletion of the term "and all other goods in this Class" and also a transfer of the application to Class 11. The examiner allowed both requests. The opponents filed two applications for the marks CAREMIX and RELIANCE CAREMIX on 27 March 1997 and they objected to the decision to allow the applicants to transfer their application from Class 7 to Class 11 since this affected their priority in Class 11.
The Hearing Officer considered the decision to allow the transfer of the application from Class 7 to Class 11 in the context of Sections 39, 32 and 34, Rule 8 and the Registrar’s practice as set down in the Trade Marks Registry’s Work Manual. Having considered the requirements of the Act and Rules, the guidance set down in the manual and submissions made at the Hearing, the Hearing Officer concluded that the examiner had been in error in allowing the transfer from Class 7 to Class 11 and the amendment was therefore ultra vires. Therefore, as the application was not properly filed (Section 33) the filing date must be treated as 19 May 1997, the date when the applicants request to change to Class 11 was received in the Registry.
In the light of his decision as regards the request to change from Class 7 to Class 11, the Hearing Officer considered the matter of intention to use, and bad faith under Section 3(6). The Hearing officer accepted that the applicants had filed their application honestly and he saw no grounds for a finding of "bad faith" under Section 3(6).
With regard to Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents evidence was totally insufficient to substantiate their case. Such use as may have occurred only commenced on 7 May 1997, about one week prior to the relevant date, and there may have been some advertising in the previous month. Opponents failed on this ground.
