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 >> FINE GAEL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o21307 (31 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o21307.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o21307 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o21307
Result
Section 3(3)(b): Opposition failed. Section 3(6): Opposition failed Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed Section 56: Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was brought by Fine Gael, a political party in The Republic of Ireland.
The application, in Class 35 specified ‘Business administration, office functions’
The Hearing Officer dealt firstly with the objection under Section 5(4)(a). Having reviewed the matter, however, he concluded that the opponents could not be found to have any goodwill in the UK and the opposition on that ground had inevitably to fail.
Having considered the matter under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer concluded that although the applicant was aware of the opponents’ long-standing use of the mark as the name of a political party in Ireland his proposed use of it in relation to business activities in the U.K. would not deprive them of the use of it in the furtherance of their political aims, nor would he be hindering them in respect of their intentions regarding its use. In all the circumstances he could not make a finding of bad faith; the 3(6) ground was dismissed.
A want of evidence regarding the extent of the mark’s reputation in the U.K., its commercial value here, its protection (if any) in other jurisdictions resulted in the dismissal of the Section 56 objection also.
Under Section 3(3) (b),the opponents’ assertion that the mark would deceive was not supported by any evidence and this ground too was dismissed.