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 >> GUEPARD GG (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49301 (8 November 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o49301.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o49301
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
GUEPARD GG (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49301 (8 November 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o49301
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/493/01
- Decision date
- 8 November 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- GUEPARD GG
- Classes
- 03, 16, 18, 25
- Applicant
- Guepard SA
- Opponent
- Chanel Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(2)(a) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. Effect of undertaking by predecessors in business
- 2. Restraint of trade
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations of their mark consisting of intertwined letters C. The Hearing Officer did not consider that there was likely to be confusion between these marks and the Section 5(2)(b) objection failed accordingly. He also found against the Section 5(4)(a) objection.
The principal ground of the opponents’ case, however, was their opposition under Section 3(6). The basis of their allegations under this headings was the existence of undertakings given by the applicants’ predecessors in business to the opponents, and which had played a significant role in opposition proceedings under the 1938 Act. The present application had been made in breach of these undertakings and in full knowledge of the outcome of the earlier opposition proceedings, said the opponents. Hence, the application had been made in bad faith. The opponents also alleged that the applicants did not intend to use the mark, but this point was not pressed at the Hearing.
The Hearing Officer, having reviewed the evidence noted its paucity (three documents, all previously considered plus one new affidavit) and he referred to the onus on those making any allegation of bad faith to prove their case: he came to the conclusion, "not without considerable hesitation" that the Section 3(6) opposition had not succeeded.
In case the matter should go to appeal, however, he went on to consider whether the earlier undertakings had placed an obligation on the present applicants, and also whether the undertaking were a restraint of trade. In neither of these matters was he fully satisfied that the applicants had a strong defence.