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 >> YTV DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o04299 (4 February 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o04299.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o04299, [1999] UKIntelP o4299
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
YTV DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o04299 (4 February 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o04299
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/042/99
- Decision date
- 4 February 1999
- Hearing officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- YTV & DEVICE
- Classes
- 38
- Applicants
- Mastering ComÁrcio Empreendimentos E ParticipacÔes Ltda
- Opponents
- Yorkshire Television Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 3(3)(a); 3(6); 5(1); 5(2); 5(3); 5(4)(a); 5(4)(b)
Result
Section 3(3)(a): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 3(3)(a): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(1): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(1): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(2): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(2): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(4)(b): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(4)(b): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.
Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
The opposition , based on relative grounds, was misconceived under the absolute grounds of Section 3(3)(a); this ground was dismissed. Under Sections 5(1)(2) and (3), the opponents did not qualify. Under 5(4)(b), the opponents had not shown any earlier rights under copyright design or registered design. Consequently the matter fell to be considered under Section 5(4)(a), and the Hearing Officer did not find in favour of the opponents under this head. Finally, the Hearing Officer found that the Section 3(6) ground, based on an absence of intention to use the mark had not been made out.