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 >>
PETER. J. GERBER OPTICIANS LTD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o39200 (18 October 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o39200.html
Cite as:
[2000] UKIntelP o39200
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
PETER. J. GERBER OPTICIANS LTD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o39200 (18 October 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o39200
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/392/00
- Decision date
- 18 October 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- PETER. J. GERBER OPTICIANS LTD
- Classes
- 09, 42
- Applicants
- Peter J Gerber Opticians Ltd
- Opponents
- Peter J Gerber
- Opposition
- Section 3(6) and Section 3(3)(b)
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
-
1. If a company is set up using a personal name and that person leaves the company, the company is entitled to carry on using the name in trade unless there have been contractual arrangements made in advance.
Summary
The opponent Mr Peter J Gerber had been involved in the setting up of a business which traded under the name PETER J GERBER OPTICIANS LTD (the mark) and owned one third of the shares in the Company. He resigned his directorship and sold his shares in the company in 1999.
Insofar as Section 3(3)(b) was concerned the Hearing Officer concluded that there was nothing inherent in the mark which would lead to deception or confusion and he dismissed that ground.
Under Section 3(6) the opponent had filed no evidence to show that the filing of the application was made in bad faith. He had been a principal in the Limited Company but as he had sold his shares and resigned his Directorship he was no longer involved in the business which had continued for some years. The Company was perfectly entitled to carry on trading under its existing name absent evidence of any contractual arrangements between the parties. Opposition failed.