For the whole decision click here: o46000
Result
Section 3(1) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
Under Section 3(1) the Hearing Officer accepted that the applicants mark was made up of three common words but observed that INTERCONTINENTAL was a rather grandiose word which was unlikely to be required by others. He, therefore, concluded that the mark was not devoid of distinctive character and thus should not be denied protection.
With regard to Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - The Hearing Officer noted that the opponents promoted their educational services primarily under the name RICHMOND and went on to decide that he could see no likelihood of public confusion between the respective marks RICHMOND, THE AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY LONDON and AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL UNIVERSITY. In his decision he noted that the words common to both marks AMERICAN and UNIVERSITY have no inherent distinctiveness.
In the light of his finding under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer dealt only briefly with Section 5(2)(b) and reached a similar decision.