British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
CD CARD (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o17202 (19 April 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o17202.html
Cite as:
[2002] UKIntelP o17202
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
CD CARD (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o17202 (19 April 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o17202
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/172/02
- Decision date
- 19 April 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- CD CARD
- Classes
- 16
- Registered Proprietor
- Tabak Marketing Limited
- Applicants for Declaration of Invalidity
- Michael Robin Markwell Limited
- Application for Invalidation
- Sections 47(1) (Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c); 3(1)(d) & 3(6))
Result
Application for invalidation Section 47(1) successful
Points Of Interest
-
Whilst Section 72 places the onus on the applicants for invalidation, the Registrar's tribunal may nevertheless proceed by way of a re-hearing of the basis on which the mark was accepted, using the Hearing Officer’s own knowledge and experience.
Summary
This was one of two related actions against this registration (see also BL O/173/02). Having examined the prima facie case against the mark the Hearing Officer concluded that it comprised "two obvious and highly descriptive elements conjoined and that in its totality the mark may serve in normal usage from a customer's point of view to designate the kind of goods concerned (greetings cards incorporating compact discs) in a natural way."
The mark therefore did not meet the requirements of Section 3(1)(c) of the Act and thus failed also under Section 3(1)(b).
The Hearing Officer went on to consider the matter under the proviso to Section 3(1). He concluded, however, that the evidence filed did not show that the mark had acquired a distinctive character either before registration or since. The application for invalidation under Section 47(1) therefore succeeded by virtue of Sections 3(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.
He did not go on to consider the matter under the other grounds cited.