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 >> 2thBRUSH (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o23302 (6 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o23302.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o23302 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23302
Result
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(d) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents confined their attack to certain goods in the applicants’ specification, for which, they alleged, the mark applied for was the phonetic equivalent of a wholly descriptive term, (toothbrush).
Noting that the test under Section 3(1)(a) established a ‘low threshold’ the Hearing Officer dismissed the objection under that head. Neither could he see that the mark applied for consisted exclusively of ‘signs indications ...etc’; the objections under Sections 3(1)(c) and (d) were also dismissed accordingly.
Having examined the matter under Section 3(1)(b) the Hearing Officer eventually concluded that the mark was not devoid of distinctive character. The opposition therefore failed on all grounds.
