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 >> ROY OF THE ROVERS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o13202 (21 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o13202.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o13202 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o13202
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
At the outset of these proceedings the opponent owned a registration for the mark ROY OF THE ROVERS in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 16 and Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) were included in the grounds of opposition. Subsequently the registration was revoked on the grounds of non-use (SRIS O/212/01) and thus the only grounds remaining in these proceedings were under Sections 5(4)(a) and 3(6).
The opponent claimed ownership of the copyright in the ROY OF THE ROVERS comic strip and provided details of various licenses which had been granted to other firms to use the mark in respect of a range of goods such as computer games, football shirts, board games etc in the early 1990's but provided no detailed evidence as to the extent of use which had taken place over what period or in what areas. As a result the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponent had the relevant goodwill in the mark to sustain an attack under Section 5(4)(a). In passing the Hearing Officer noted that there was no copyright in a name such as ROY OF THE ROVERS.
The ground under Section 3(6) was pleaded on the basis that the mark had been used by the opponent prior to the applicant filing his application but as none of this claimed use was in respect of footwear the Hearing Officer decided that a claim to bad faith had not been made out.
