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 >> CLASSIC (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o29003 (24 September 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o29003.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o29003 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o29003
Result
Section 9(1)(c), (d) & (e) - Not considered.
Section 10 - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants filed significant evidence of use of their mark CLASSIC and the application was supported by declarations from the Paper Federation of Great Britain (a trade body) and from competitors. On close examination the Hearing Officer noted that in most instances the mark CLASSIC had been used with other trade marks or trade mark devices.
The opponents also filed evidence of use in the form ZANDERS CLASSIC but such use was modest and much of the documentation was dated after the relevant date. They also filed evidence to show that other traders used the word CLASSIC as a descriptor in their brochures etc.
The Hearing Officer noted that as the mark was proceeding in Part B of the Register he had only that ground to consider. He also noted the descriptive and laudatory nature of the mark CLASSIC and drew attention to the comments of High Court Judges when considering earlier applications by parties seeking to register the mark CLASSIC . Taking all the relevant factors into account, including the fact that the applicants did not appear to use CLASSIC solus as a trade mark, the Hearing Officer concluded that the applicants had not established that their mark was capable of distinguishing their paper goods from those of others. Opposition thus succeeded.
