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 >>
ISSIGONIS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o07601 (15 February 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o07601.html
Cite as:
[2001] UKIntelP o7601,
[2001] UKIntelP o07601
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
ISSIGONIS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o07601 (15 February 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o07601
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/076/01
- Decision date
- 15 February 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- ISSIGONIS
- Classes
- 12
- Applicant
- Simon James Empson
- Opponent
- Rover Group Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d); Sections 3(3)(b) & 3(6) & Section 32(3)
Result
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition succeeded
Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition succeeded
Section 3(1)(d) - Opposition failed
Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition not pursued
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Section 32(3) - Opposition not pursued
Points Of Interest
-
Continued use of term by applicant - The Hearing Officer observed that his decision offered no bar to the applicant’s continued descriptive use of the term in the course of business, and in due course it was even possible that the proviso to Section 3(1) could allow subsequent registration of the term if it became factually distinctive through use.
Summary
The opponent’s evidence showed that considerable fame attached to the word ISSIGONIS since it was the (very rare) surname of a famous designer of motor vehicles and their parts and fittings, but the Hearing Officer was not persuaded on the evidence that the word directly described goods covered by the application in suit (modified cars, and parts and fittings therefor); rather, it could function as a badge of origin and as a trade mark. Opposition under Section 3(1)(a) therefore failed. However, the mark in suit was held to fall foul of Sections 3(1)(b) and (c) since it could be an apt term for use in the business of reproducing or restoring classic cars (and their parts and fittings) to indicate the particular type or model of vehicle.
Opposition under Sections 3(1)(d) and 3(6) also failed for want of relevant evidence.