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 >>
THE GATEHOUSE THEATRE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o32800 (1 September 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o32800.html
Cite as:
[2000] UKIntelP o32800
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
THE GATEHOUSE THEATRE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o32800 (1 September 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o32800
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/328/00
- Decision date
- 1 September 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- THE GATEHOUSE THEATRE
- Classes
- 41
- Applicants
- Beryl Scott Smith (Chair of Trustees The Gatehouse Theatre)
- Opponents
- Ovation Theatres Limited
- Opposition
- Section 3(3)(b) and Section 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
-
1. It became clear at the hearing that the opponents had only filed opposition to defend their position and the Hearing Officer observed that if the parties had negotiated, a less costly settlement could have been achieved at a much earlier stage in the proceedings.
Summary
The applicant’s application was filed on 22 August 1997 and it quickly became clear at the hearing that the opponents could not sustain their objections under Section 5(4)(a) - (Passing Off) - since the earliest date on which they used their mark "UPSTAIRS AT THE GATEHOUSE was in December 1997. They therefore could not claim an earlier right. Opposition failed on this ground.
The opponents objection under Section 3(3)(b) (deception) was also somewhat convoluted since they attempted to argue that the nature of the applicant mark indicated a theatre at a geographical location whereas the Group in question had been putting on various performances for many years at different locations. Having considered the matter fully the Hearing Officer concluding that this was taking much too narrow a view of the mark and the objection was dismissed.