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 >> DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o21200 (22 June 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o21200.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o21200
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o21200 (22 June 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o21200
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/212/00
- Decision date
- 22 June 2000
- Hearing officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- DEVICE
- Classes
- 16
- Applicant
- The Supreme Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis
- Opponent
- Lexique Limited
- Opposition
- Section 3(3)(a), 3(4) & Section 3(5)
Result
Section 3(3)(a) - Opposition unsuccessful
Section 3(4) - Opposition unsuccessful
Section 3(5) - Opposition unsuccessful
Points Of Interest
- The opponents indicated at the hearing that they wished to argue the matter also under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act and claimed it was covered by the Statement of Case. The applicants objected and after considering arguments from both parties the Hearing Officer refused to allow Section 3(1)(b) to be argued.
Summary
The opponents main grounds of opposition were that the Star of David is a figure in the shape of a star formed by superimposing and/or intersecting one equilateral triangle when another inverted equilateral triangle of the same size (a hexagram device). This device is a specially protected emblem symbolising Judaism and is distinctive of the flag of the State of Israel.
Under Section 3(3)(a) the Hearing Officer concluded that the hexagram device as represented in the mark was somewhat different from the protected emblem and he did not think that registration would impact on any other parties who wish to use the protected emblem nor would the public assume that goods bearing the mark were connected with Judaism. Additionally he noted that the opponents had offered to withdraw their opposition if a disclaimer was entered on the Register and, since disclaimers did not enter the marketplace, this weakened the opponents objections under Section 3(3)(a)
Again under Sections 3(4) and 3(5) the Hearing Officer was of the opinion that the hexagram appearing in the mark was very different from the Star of David and that as presented in the mark as a whole he concluded that, as the opponents had filed no evidence from the public to support their assertions, they must also fail on these grounds.