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 >> EDUCARE ET INTEGARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o13303 (13 May 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o13303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o13303
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
EDUCARE ET INTEGARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o13303 (13 May 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o13303
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/133/03
- Decision date
- 13 May 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- EDUCARE ET INTEGARE
- Classes
- 41
- Applicants
- University of the Universe
- Opponents
- de Brus Marketing Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(4)(a) & 32
Result
Section 3(6) ;5(4)(a) & 32 - Opposition successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Applicants : Legal personality : intention to use.
- 2. ‘UNIVERSITY’ : legal status of applicant.
Summary
The opponents alleged that the applicants did not constitute a ‘legal person’ within the meaning of Section 32 and, as a separate matter, did not have an intention to use the mark, either because they had no legal status or because their specification was too wide.
The Hearing Officer dealt with these aspects first since no Section 5 issue would arise if the application was void, ab initio.
After reviewing the facts, and the law concerning the use of the word ‘University’ (which did not appear in the trade mark) the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents had established a prima facie case in the matter of the legal status of the applicant. The Hearing Officer was not satisfied, from the evidence that the ‘University of the Universe’ could, at the date of application properly have claimed to be the applicant for registration. In consequence the application was, for practical purposes, a nullity. The opposition under Sections 3(6)/32 succeeded accordingly.
The Hearing Officer, after detailed consideration of the Section 5(4)(a) objection, concluded that the opponents were ‘at the margins’ of substantiating their claim to goodwill, but in any case could not show misrepresentation leading to damage.