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 >> ROYAL SHAKESPEARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o00200 (7 January 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o00200.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o00200, [2000] UKIntelP o200
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ROYAL SHAKESPEARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o00200 (7 January 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o00200
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/002/00
- Decision date
- 7 January 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- ROYAL SHAKESPEARE
- Classes
- 32
- Applicants
- Jackson International Trading Company Kurt D Bruhl Gesellschaft MbH & Company KG
- Opponents
- Mr J D Pope, Royal Shakespeare Company
- Opposition
- Sections 5(1), 5(2)(b), 5(3) and Section 99
Result
Section 5(1) - Opposition dismissed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 99 - Not a ground of Opposition
Points Of Interest
- 1. Introduction of new grounds of opposition.
- 2. Comments on marks implying a Royal connection.
Summary
The application, which was in respect of:- 'Beers including low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers; fruit drinks, fruit juices and Isotonic drinks', was opposed by the Royal Shakespeare Company under various provisions of Section 5, and under Section 99, 'having regard to the fact that the opponent company is incorporated under Royal Charter'. At the hearing the opponents sought to widen the pleadings to include Section 3(4), Section 4(1)(d) and Section 5(4), but this was refused.
It was conceded that there was no basis for the objection under Section 5(1); This ground was therefore dismissed. Under Section 5(2)(b) the marks were found to be potentially confusing but there was no similarity in the goods. Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer did not find tangible danger to the reputation of the opponents mark. Section 99 deals with unauthorised use and does not provide a route for a refusal of registration - such route being found in Section 4. The opposition therefore failed under Section 99.