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 >> WEATHER GUARD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o34108 (23 December 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o34108.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o34108 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o34108
Result
Section 3(1)(b): Opposition failed Section 3(1)(c): Opposition failed Section 3(1)(d): Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The Hearing Officer noted, firstly, that the applicants had not claimed that their mark had acquired a distinctive character by reason of use. He also noted that whilst the Patent Office’s Search and Advisory Service had advised the opponent that Weather Guard would not be acceptable under Section 3(1), he knew nothing of the circumstances in which that advice had been given.
Turning to the objection under Section 3(1)(d) he concluded, in the result, that the evidence supplied did not demonstrate that the sign in issue was “customarily used” and the objection under 3(1)(d) failed accordingly.
Under Section 3(1)(c) the Hearing Officer was required to address the question of whether the mark was descriptive or merely suggestive. In the result he decided that the combination of the two words did not lend itself to descriptive use in relation to paint and the objection under Section 3(1)(c) failed also.
Under Section 3(1)(b) the Hearing Officer found that “whilst a suggestive message will be seen by the consumer there is no reason why it will not be seen as trade origin specific”. This objection also failed.
