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 >> TARDIS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o01103 (13 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o01103.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o1103, [2003] UKIntelP o01103
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TARDIS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o01103 (13 January 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o01103
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/011/03
- Decision date
- 13 January 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- TARDIS
- Classes
- 12
- Applicant
- Manhattan Corporation Limited
- Opponent
- The British Broadcasting Corporation
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 'Bad faith'.
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations and use of the marks THE TARDIS and TARDIS.
The Hearing Officer dealt with the matter first under Section 5(3). The marks being identical and the goods not similar, the matter was essentially one of reputation and detriment.
The Hearing Officer, however, could not find from the evidence that the word TARDIS had ever been used as a trade mark and hence no reputation could be established. The Section 5(3) objection therefore fell at the first hurdle but the Hearing Officer went on to consider the other aspects of the opponents’ case which, in the result, he found had no merit.
Turning to the Section 5(4)(a) objection the Hearing Officer again found that the absence of a reputation or goodwill in the mark TARDIS in respect of any goods or services was fatal to the case.
Under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer, whilst agreeing with the opponents that the mark was not coined entirely innocently (the applicants claimed it stood for Touring And Recreational Driving In Safety), he did not consider that its adoption amounted to 'bad faith'.