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 >> THE WATERLESS VALETING COMPANY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o39803 (22 December 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o39803.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o39803 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o39803
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent claimed that he had been introduced to a new dry wash product in the USA for use in the valeting of motor vehicles and he had brought the product back to the UK and set up a valeting business under the WATERLESS mark in 1995. This mark was used in a wave form in the colour pink and the opponent noted that the applicants claimed the colour pink and blue in relation to the second mark in the series applied for. The opponent accepted that he could not claim exclusive rights in the word WATERLESS but said that as the applicants proposed to use an almost identical mark in an identical colour, confusion was likely.
The opponent filed details of modest use and promotion of his mark from 1995 onwards but such use was not particularly well documented. He also claimed that principals of the applicant company had been appointed as Licensees but again documentation confirming this fact was not provided. Under Section 5(4)(a) – Passing Off – the Hearing Officer noted that the opponent’s only claim was in relation to shape and colour and he concluded that the evidence filed was totally insufficient to support this ground of opposition. The opponent, therefore, failed on the Section 5(4)(a) ground.
As regards the ground under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer examined a license agreement between the opponent and another party called Anderson whom he claimed were principals of the applicant company. The Hearing Officer found the Agreement inconclusive and in any case there was no evidence that the Andersons were principals of the applicant company. Opposition thus failed on this ground.
