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 >> CAMSCAN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o19905 (15 July 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o19905.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o19905
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CAMSCAN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o19905 (15 July 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o19905
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/199/05
- Decision date
- 15 July 2005
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- CAMSCAN
- Classes
- 42
- Applicant
- U.W.G. Limited
- Opponents
- E.V. Offshore Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6): - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. Passing-off; ownership of reputation in supplier/single customer relationship.
Summary
The opponents claimed that the mark CAMSCAN was theirs, that the applicants knew this and that the use of the mark was liable to be prevented by the law of passing-off.
The Hearing Officer dealt first with the matter under Section 5(4)(a). The applicants and the opponents had both been party to an arrangement whereby the opponents had manufactured and supplied equipment to the order of the applicants, for use in their scanning services. The applicants were the opponents' only customer for this equipment and from the evidence the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that any, let alone a "substantial number" of the relevant persons would associate the name CAMSCAN with the opponents. Consequently the opponents had not established a claim to a goodwill or reputation in the mark. There could be no finding that they had suffered or were likely to suffer damage. The Section 5(4)(a) objection failed accordingly.
The Hearing Officer was also unable to infer from the evidence that the mark was originated by the opponents or that it was theirs. The Section 3(6) objection therefore failed as well.