British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
ABERCROMBIE FITCH (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o04000 (14 February 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o04000.html
Cite as:
[2000] UKIntelP o4000,
[2000] UKIntelP o04000
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
ABERCROMBIE FITCH (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o04000 (14 February 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o04000
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/040/00
- Decision date
- 14 February 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- ABERCROMBIE & FITCH
- Classes
- 25, 42
- Applicants
- A & F Trade Mark Inc
- Opponents
- J & J Crombie Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(a); 3(1)(b); 3(3)(b); 3(6); 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Opposition failed on all grounds
Points Of Interest
-
1. The opponents appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 21 March 2001 (BL O/151/01) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision.
-
2. See also decision dated 14 February 2000 (BL O/041/00) where the Hearing Officer decided that the mark ABERCROMBIE (being a surname) was not acceptable for registration under the Trade Marks Act 1938 (as amended).
-
Application of the Registry's practice in relation to surnames.
Summary
The Section 3(3)(b) and 3(6) grounds were dismissed by the Hearing Officer, as no evidence in support of them was put forward. Reviewing the law and practice in relation to surnames the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks applied for were not barred by the provisions of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b). Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks were so dissimilar as to rule out the possibility of confusion on the public. In the light of this finding the Hearing Officer went on to conclude that use of the marks would not result in any misrepresentation and hence the opposition under Section 5(4)(a) did not succeed.