For the whole decision click here: o24398
Result
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition successful
Section 3(1)(d) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants indicated that they were not seeking rights in the individual elements but only in the combination. In his consideration of the evidence filed and submissions made, the Hearing Officer decided that the mark applied for could be a trade mark such as fell within the definition of 3(1)(a). However, while there may not be widespread use of the term CLAW such as would debar the mark under 3(1)(d) the Hearing Officer concluded that MINI is not distinctive and that CLAW is apt to describe a garden tool with a shape resembling a claw. He therefore, decided that the mark was excluded by the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.