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 >> TOTTENHAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o02403 (6 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o02403.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o02403, [2003] UKIntelP o2403
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TOTTENHAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o02403 (6 January 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o02403
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/024/03
- Decision date
- 6 January 2003
- Hearing officer
- Professor Ruth Annand
- Mark
- TOTTENHAM
- Classes
- 06, 09, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 39, 41, 42
- Applicants
- Tottenham Hotspur Plc
- Opponents
- Patricia Hard O'Connell & Michael O'Connell
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(b) & (c)
Result
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed. Appeal dismissed.
Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition failed. Appeal dismissed.
Points Of Interest
- See also BL O/135/01, BL O/527/01 and BL O/150/02
Summary
In his decision dated 8 April 2000 (BL O/150/02) the Hearing Officer decided that the mark applied for was not debarred registration by the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and (c) and dismissed the opposition. The opponents appealed to the Appointed Person.
The Appointed Person reviewed the Hearing Officer's decision and took account of arguments placed before her at the Hearing. As regards Section 3(1)(b) it was accepted that the mark applied for was not devoid of distinctive character merely because it indicated a connection with Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. As regards the geographical nature of the mark at issue the Hearing Officer had found that TOTTENHAM had no current or likely geographical connotations for the goods in question and there was nothing in the opponents evidence to obviate that finding. Opposition thus failed on this ground.
Turning to Section 3(1)(c) the Appointed Person noted that the opponents' evidence had not established to any extent that TOTTENHAM would be viewed as a geographic name in relation to the goods at issue nor that others currently used or would require the name to indicate a geographical name in the future. The Hearing Officer had analyzed the characteristics of the Tottenham area correctly and had reached the right decision as regards acceptance of the mark applied for in the context of Section 3(1)(c). Opposition failed on this ground.