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 >> FORM ONLY MARK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o32601 (31 July 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o32601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o32601
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FORM ONLY MARK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o32601 (31 July 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o32601
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/326/01
- Decision date
- 31 July 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- FORM ONLY MARK
- Classes
- 12, 37
- Applicant
- Ford Motor Company Limited
- Opponent
- Halfords Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 1(1), 3(1)(a), (b) & (d)
Result
Section 1(1) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(a)-(d) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition succeeded
Points Of Interest
- Survey Evidence. If survey evidence is to have any weight it must be conducted fairly and impartially (Imperial Group plc v Philip Morris Ltd (1984) RPC 293)
Summary
The applicants had filed evidence of use at examination stage to persuade the Registrar to accept the mark and advertise it for opposition purposes. They did not file this evidence in the opposition proceedings (but the opponents did). Instead they filed survey evidence in support of the application.
The opponents criticised both sets of evidence. They noted that the applicants had filed three representations initially and had them deleted two of them. The evidence filed at examination stage had been in support of a representation of one of the deleted marks; also that the survey evidence was flawed.
The Hearing Officer expressed the view that the mark applied was a sign capable of being a distinguishing "trade mark" but went on to find that it was not a distinctive trade mark within the terms of Section 3(1)(b) and that the evidence filed in support of the application was totally inadequate in showing that the mark was capable of distinguishing.