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 >> FREE 2 TALK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o55201 (11 December 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o55201.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o55201
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FREE 2 TALK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o55201 (11 December 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o55201
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/552/01
- Decision date
- 11 December 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- FREE 2 TALK
- Classes
- 35
- Applicant
- Freedom Telecom (UK) Ltd
- Opponent
- Mercury Personal Communications
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6).. - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of registrations for the mark ONE 2 ONE (and variations thereof) in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 38. They also claimed an extensive reputation in the mark ONE 2 ONE and also that the numeral '2' was associated with their company. The opponents filed survey evidence to substantiate this latter claim but achieved only some 3% support for such a claim.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer applied the usual tests and decided that similar services were at issue. He decided however that, not withstanding the results from the survey, that the respective marks ONE 2 ONE and FREEDOM 2 TALK and device were not visually, aurally or conceptionally similar. The opposition thus failed on this ground.
As the Hearing Officer had decided that the respective marks were not similar he concluded that under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - there would be no misrepresentation.
Under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer determined that a mere knowledge by the applicants of the opponents’ marks prior to filing was insufficient to constitute bad faith, particularly as he had concluded that the respective marks were not similar.