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 >> CHF1 CHANNEL F1 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o41602 (14 October 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o41602.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o41602

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


CHF1 CHANNEL F1 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o41602 (14 October 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o41602

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/416/02
Decision date
14 October 2002
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
CHF1 CHANNEL F1
Classes
03, 04, 09, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 42
Applicant
Channel F1 Limited
Opponent
Chanel Limited
Opposition
Sections 3(6), 5(2) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Not considered.

Points Of Interest

Summary

In his decision dated 19 June 2002 (BL O/248/02) the Hearing Officer made a provisional decision under Section 3(6) in favour of the opponents. However, he allowed a period of 28 days for the applicants to rebut a claim by the opponents as regards their intention to use the mark applied for in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

The applicants filed a Statutory Declaration dated 16 July 2002 made by their Chief Operating Officer. In that declaration the applicants claimed that plans had been in existence to attract companies as sponsers, partners or co-investors with a view to these companies being licensed to use the mark at issue. These proposals had been drawn together to form a business plan which was attached to the declaration.

The opponents objected to the applicants method of response and the claims made, but the Hearing Officer accepted that the information from the applicants had been filed within time and was acceptable. In the light of the information now before him the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents failed in their ground of opposition under Section 3(6).



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o41602.html