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 >> MULTI CORE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o20801 (30 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o20801.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o20801
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MULTI CORE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o20801 (30 April 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o20801
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/208/01
- Decision date
- 30 April 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr S P Rowan
- Mark
- MULTI CORE
- Classes
- 07
- Applicant
- Multi-Core Aerators (Aust) Pty Ltd
- Opponent
- Multi-Core Aerators Ltd
- Opposition
- Section 5
Result
.Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The applicant in suit and its predecessors in title manufactured equipment (Sports Turf Aerators) in Australia which was sold in the UK by a succession of distributors, including the opponent who claimed to have used and to own the mark MULTICORE. The opponent also relied under Section 5 on a UK application to register the mark MULTICORE (device). However that application was excluded from consideration in these proceedings by the Hearing Officer by virtue of Section 6.
In the absence of the opponent at the Hearing, the Hearing Officer was left to deduce that the opponent’s only remaining ground of opposition was under Section 5(4)(a), so far as it covered passing off. After a detailed review of the evidence relating to the UK sales of equipment under the mark MULTI-CORE, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a goodwill and reputation in that mark and that he was left to determine to whom the goodwill had accrued.
In the result, applying the usual case law (in the light of the fact that there was only a verbal agreement covering the parties’ period of collaboration) he concluded on the facts that the applicant was responsible for the character or quality of the equipment, and was perceived as such by the relevant public. Opposition under Section 5(4)(a) therefore failed (MedGen case distinguished).