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 >> INDEPENDENCE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o03799 (12 January 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o03799.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o03799, [1999] UKIntelP o3799
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
INDEPENDENCE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o03799 (12 January 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o03799
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/037/99
- Decision date
- 12 January 1999
- Hearing officer
- Mr M G Clarke QC
- Mark
- INDEPENDENCE
- Classes
- 33
- Applicant
- Ranald MacDonald & Joseph William Senior
- Opponent
- Joseph William Senior
- Opposition
- Section 3(6)
Result
Section 3(6): - Opposition successful.
Section 3(6): - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 9 July 1998 (BL O/144/98).
Summary
This was an appeal to the Appointed person because a Statutory Declaration by Mr Peter Trainer, a declarant in the proceedings, had been mislaid by the Registry and was not included with the appears before the Hearing Officer when he made his decision (decision dated 9 July 1998 BL O/144/98).
The Appointed Person reviewed the papers surrounding the dispute between Mr MacDonald and Mr Senior involving their trading relationship; the formation of a company Independence Whisky Company Ltd and the application for the trade mark INDEPENDENCE and label device in their joint names. The evidence of Mr Trainer failed to clarify matters to any significant extent since it appeared from his evidence that the mark was to be the property of the limited company, yet the application was made in joint names. Additionally there was no written agreement between the parties nor was there any written record of the meetings mentioned in Mr Trainer’s declaration.
The Appointed Person decided that Mr Senior had used the mark INDEPENDENCE as an individual and in the absence of clear documentary evidence establishing that Mr Senior had consented to the application being made in joint names, it must be considered as being made in bad faith. Hearing Officer’s decision therefore upheld.