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 >> PINMORE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o40600 (1 November 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o40600.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o40600
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
PINMORE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o40600 (1 November 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o40600
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/406/00
- Decision date
- 1 November 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- PINMORE
- Classes
- 07, 35
- Applicants
- Hassan Talal Yousef Assali
- Opponents
- Pinmore Investments Limited & Abboudi Rahman
- Opposition
- Section 3(3)(b), Section 5(4)(a) and Section 3(6)
Result
Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition succeeded
Section 3(6) - Opposition succeeded
Points Of Interest
- 1. The applicant appealed to the Appointed Person. The Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision under both Section 3(6) and 5(4)(a). Decision dated 5 June 2001 (BL O/303/01).
Summary
Mr Assali and Mr Rahman had co-operated in the design and manufacture of an Oil Recycler and a company had been set up under the name Pinmore (UK) Ltd to promote and market the product. This company traded from 1995 to 1997 when it went into liquidation with the Winding up order dated 7 May 1997. The date of filing of the applicant’s application was 25 March 1997 which is the relevant date of these proceedings. Consequently when he made his application it was not open to Mr Assali to claim proprietorship of the mark at issue since at that time Pinmore (UK) was still in existence. In view of this the Hearing Officer found the opponents to be successful in their opposition under Section 5(4)(a), "passing off" and Section 3(6) "bad faith". The opposition under Section 3(3)(b) failed since there is nothing inherently deceptive in the mark.