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 >> WANNABEE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o47100 (6 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o47100.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o47100 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o47100
Result
Section 3(6) - Leave to add this ground refused
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition dismissed
Section 5(3) - Opposition dismissed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition dismissed
Points Of Interest
Summary
Hearing Officer's decision (O/156/00) on all grounds under Section 5 upheld, and Opponent refused leave to add allegation of bad faith under Section 3(6), which was not argued before the Hearing Officer.
In his approach under Section 5(4)(a), the Appointed Person confirmed that this postulates a hypothetical passing off action commenced as of the date of application, and that it is reputation at that date that has to be assessed, and the question of misrepresentation has to be approached on the basis of a notional and fair use of the mark in suit. It was wrong in law for the Opponent to seek to adduce evidence to show how the reputation would have developed by the time the mark was used. If use of the applicants mark was delayed, it was always open to the Opponent to bring a later passing off action if the use was not the same as the assumed notional and fair use and/or their reputation grew in the meantime.
Although he departed from the Hearing Officer in assessing some of the Opponent's evidence, notably that assessed by the latter as hearsay, he was nevertheless wholly unpersuaded that the Hearing Officer's conclusion in the matter of the Opponent's reputation was in anyway at fault. He also concluded that the Hearing Officer had rightly distinguished the present case from the cited authority (The Eternity case) in finding no likelihood of confusion.
The Hearing Officer's finding under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) were upheld with only brief consideration deemed necessary in each case.
