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 >> ZINK (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2003] UKIntelP o09303 (2 April 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o09303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o09303, [2003] UKIntelP o9303
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ZINK (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2003] UKIntelP o09303 (2 April 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o09303
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/093/03
- Decision date
- 2 April 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr E S Smith
- Mark
- ZINK
- Classes
- 07, 09, 11, 12, 17
- Registered Proprietor
- Real Time Networks
- Applicants for a declaration of Invalidity
- Ford Motor Company
- Application for Invalidation
- Sections 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c) & 3(3)(b)
Result
Section 3(1)(b) - Application for invalidation failed
Section 3(1)(c) - Application for invalidation failed
Section 3(3) - Application for invalidation failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. The burden on the applicants for invalidation is only prima facie, but it is still higher than mere assertion.
Summary
The applicants contended that the word ZINK being phonetically the same as the word ZINC, (and also being the German word for Zinc) the mark was objectionable under the Sections cited for any goods consisting of or incorporating zinc, and deceptive in respective of goods that might be thought to be so constituted.
The proprietor could not be contacted and hence the registration was not defended. On the basis of Section 72 however, the Hearing Officer found that the case of invalidity had to be made out.
In the Hearing Officer’s view the mark was ‘heavily stylised’ and thus did not consist “exclusively ….etc”. The stylisation also conveyed the message that it was ‘origin specific’. The application under Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) failed accordingly.
The applicants had not provided sufficient information as to how and in respect of which goods the mark might be deceptive. The Section 3(3) application therefore failed also.