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 >> REF LINK! (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o05603 (21 February 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o05603.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o5603, [2003] UKIntelP o05603
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
REF LINK! (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o05603 (21 February 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o05603
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/056/03
- Decision date
- 21 February 2003
- Hearing officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- REF LINK!
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant
- The Sports Channel Limited
- Opponent
- RefLink Limited
- Opposition
- Section 3(6)
Result
Section 3(6):(Intention to use) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(6):(Acceptable standards of commercial behaviour) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
The opponents opposition was under Section 3(6) regarding intention to use at the date of application and secondly that they were not entitled to sole use of the mark applied.
By way of background, which is extensively described in the Hearing Officer’s decision, it would appear that the applicants originally coined the mark Ref!Link about 1998 to be in relation to radio receivers so that referee decisions could be transmitted to supporters at Rugby Football matches. The opponents had a similar idea and discussions took place about a joint venture. At the same time because of its various contacts in the Rugby world the opponents pressed ahead with trials and had made good progress as regards implementation of this system. Discussions to combine the applicants within the opponents’ RefLink Ltd company reached stalemate; the two parties could not agree a price as regards transfer of the mark in suite and there is a continuing dispute about monies said to be owed by the opponents to the applicants.
Turning to the ground under Section 3(6) relating to “intention to use” the Hearing Officer noted that the applicants had filed their application while negotiations between the parties were going on. They claimed that it was their intention to develop their original concept in the clothing field and the application had been filed to protect their position. The fact that they had been prepared to sell their mark at a later date did not affect that intention. The Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the opponents had filed sufficient evidence to cast doubt on the applicants’ intentions and found that the opponents failed on this ground.
As regards the second ground under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer noted that the applicants had originally coined the mark and while there had been discussions and negotiations between the parties there was no contract. In the Hearing Officer’s view the applicants were entitled to make their application and they had not acted in an unreasonable manner in protecting their business concept. Opposition also failed on this ground