British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
CHARLIE'S ANGELS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o09704 (8 April 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o09704.html
Cite as:
[2004] UKIntelP o9704,
[2004] UKIntelP o09704
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
CHARLIE'S ANGELS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o09704 (8 April 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o09704
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/097/04
- Decision date
- 8 April 2004
- Hearing officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- CHARLIE'S ANGELS
- Classes
- 31
- Applicant
- R Delamore Limited
- Opponent
- Columbia Picture Industries Incorporated
- Opposition
- Sections 5(3) & 5(4)(a)* (*an objection under Section 5(2)(a) was dropped shortly before the hearing)
Result
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
-
1. Use as a trade mark; indications of subject matter, not origin.
Summary
The application was in respect of a range of plants, flowers seeds etc. The opposition was based, essentially, on the films and TV programmes 'CHARLIE'S ANGELS'.
The Hearing Officer considered that the opponent’s evidence did not substantiate their claim to a sufficient reputation in a trade mark such as to justify a case under Section 5(3). Nevertheless, in case he should be wrong in this he went on to consider the questions of detriment or unfair advantage. In this, however, the evidence was insufficient to establish that either of those wrongs would occur in practice. The Section 5(3) objection failed accordingly.
The same deficiencies in the evidence effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) also. The name ‘CHARLIE’S ANGELS’ was a description of the content of a television series, not a trade mark, the Hearing Officer decided.