Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/209/04

Decision date

2 July 2004

Hearing officer

Professor Ruth Annand

Mark

THE WATERLESS VALETING COMPANY

Classes

37

Applicant

The Waterless Valeting Company Limited

Opponent

William Struth

Opposition

Sections 3(6) & 5(4)(a). Appeal to the Appointed Person (Section 5(4)(a) ground)

Result

Section 5(4)(a) - Appeal to the Appointed Person dismissed.

Points Of Interest

• 1. See also BL O/398/03

Summary

This was an appeal of the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 22 December 2003 in which he found that the opponent failed in his opposition under Sections 3(6) and 5(4)(a). The appeal related only to the Section 5(4)(a) ground.

The grounds of appeal were that the Hearing Officer had misidentified the earlier right on which the opponent relied which was in fact the word WATERLESS in wave form and in pink. The Appointed Person carefully reviewed the evidence before the Hearing Officer and the basis of his decision. She concluded that the Hearing Officer had in fact considered the word WATERLESS in wave form (in black and white) and also in colour and had been correct to conclude that the evidence filed was insufficient to show that the opponent had sufficient reputation in these two aspects bearing in mind that it was conceded by the opponent that he could not claim rights in the word WATERLESS because of its descriptive and generic meaning. Appeal dismissed.