Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> MOTHER PUCKER'S CITRUS BREW (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o21698 (5 November 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o21698.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o21698
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MOTHER PUCKER'S CITRUS BREW (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o21698 (5 November 1998)
For the whole decision click here: o21698
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/216/98
- Decision date
- 5 November 1998
- Hearing officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- MOTHER PUCKER'S CITRUS BREW
- Classes
- 32, 33
- Applicant
- Harry Francis Drnec
- Opponent
- Incorporated Beverages (ICB) Jersey Ltd and Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 5(4)(a) & 3(6)
Result
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
The opponents had filed their own application to register the mark MRS PUCKER on 3 October 1996. The applicants mark was filed on 21 July 1995.
The opponents evidence shows that they were contacted by the applicant about July 1995 and subsequently entered into a trading arrangement whereby the opponents would sell goods (alcopops) produced by the applicant under the mark MRS PUCKERS CITRUS BREW. The opponents claimed that there was to be joint-ownership of marks including the earlier application filed by the applicant (this mark). A letter of intent was signed on 20 October, 1995 and the opponents say that there has been sales of goods under the MRS PUCKERS brand since 1995 amounting to £2.368m and several hundred thousand pounds has been spent promoting the brand.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - The Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents could not assert any rights at the relevant date since they had only commenced discussions with the applicant in July 1995. Similarly as regards Section 3(6) - Bad Faith - the application was made at or about the same time as discussions between the parties commenced so clearly when it was made it could not have been made in bad faith.