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 >> TWENTY FOUR 7 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o57901 (20 December 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o57901.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o57901
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TWENTY FOUR 7 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o57901 (20 December 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o57901
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/579/01
- Decision date
- 20 December 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr R A Jones
- Mark
- TWENTY FOUR 7
- Classes
- 29, 30, 32, 42
- Applicant
- Helshaw Food products Limited
- Opponent
- The Southland Corporation
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(a); 3(1)(b); 5(2)(b); 5(3); 5(4)(a) & 56
Result
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- No evidence filed under Section 3(1)(b), but opposition successful.
Summary
The Hearing Officer could find no objection to the mark under Section 3(1)(a); but he upheld the objection to the mark under Section 3(1)(b). He gave as his view that “24-7 or equivalent is an entirely normal way of designating an essential characteristic of the services ie available twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week “and he thought this could apply to the goods also.
This decided the matter but he went on to consider the matter under Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3); 5(4) and 56. Under these Sections the opponents cited a number of registered marks, but under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer considered that their strongest case lay in their mark 7-ELEVEN, registered for all goods in Class 30. This involved identical goods. The marks were not identical, and the hearing Officer eventually decided that there was no likelihood of confusion. This effectively decided the matter under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) and 56 also.