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 >> CHEERS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2004] UKIntelP o03804 (5 February 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o03804.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o03804, [2004] UKIntelP o3804
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CHEERS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2004] UKIntelP o03804 (5 February 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o03804
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/038/04
- Decision date
- 5 February 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- CHEERS
- Classes
- 09, 38
- Applicant for Invalidity
- Miles Samaratne
- Registered Proprietor
- Paramount Pictures Corporation
- Invalidity
- Section 47(2) based on Sections 5(1), 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(1) & 5(2)(a) - Invalidity action failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Invalidity action partially successful. Implementation conditional on registration of applicants marks.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
The applicant had applied to register the marks CHEERS AFRICA, CHEERS ASIA, CHEERS MIDDLE EAST, CHEERS INTERNATIONAL and CHEERS EUROPE in Classes 9 and 38 prior to the date of application of the registered mark. They also claimed use of some of these marks prior to date of application of the registered mark and the Hearing Officer accepted that they had established a protectable goodwill at the relevant date.
The registered proprietors filed some evidence of use of the mark CHEERS but there was no relevant use in relation to the goods and services of the registration in suit.
The application for invalidity under Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(a) was dismissed because the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were not identical.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer was satisfied that the respective marks were very similar and that the opponents goods and services were similar to some of the registered proprietors Class 9 goods and all of their Class 36 devices. In the event that the applicant's marks were registered the registered proprietors mark would be restricted accordingly.
Under Section 5(4)(a) – Passing Off – the Hearing Officer was satisfied that the applicant had established a protectable goodwill at the relevant date in respect of goods and services similar to those within the registration in suit. Thus the Class 38 registration would be deleted and the Class 9 registration restricted in the same manner as under Section 5(2)(b). However, this finding was not conditional on the applicant achieving registration and would take effect at the end of the appeal period.