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 >>
SEO, SE,O SITE BUILDER, SE,O TOURISM SITE BUILDER, SE,O PROPERTY SITE BUILDER, SE,O AUTOMOTIVE SITE BUILDER (series of five trade marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o28108 (14 October 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o28108.html
Cite as:
[2008] UKIntelP o28108
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
SEO, SE,O SITE BUILDER, SE,O TOURISM SITE BUILDER, SE,O PROPERTY SITE BUILDER, SE,O AUTOMOTIVE SITE BUILDER (series of five trade marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o28108 (14 October 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o28108
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/281/08
- Decision date
- 14 October 2008
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- SEO, SE,O SITE BUILDER, SE,O TOURISM SITE BUILDER, SE,O PROPERTY SITE BUILDER, SE,O AUTOMOTIVE SITE BUILDER (series of five trade marks)
- Classes
- 09, 16, 41, 42
- Applicants
- IT3 Internet Application Solutions Limited
- Opponents
- Babylon Technologies Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(a); 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 3(1)(d) (Reference is made in the decision of a ground under Section 5(4)(a), which was withdrawn and the Section 3(1)(a) objection was not pursued)
Result
Opposition Sections 3(1)(b) & 3(1)(c); successful, for the most part.
Points Of Interest
-
“Where the get-up is commonplace or simply emphasises the descriptiveness of the other element, it is unlikely to provide the mark with a trade mark character.”
Summary
The opposition was based on the fact (generally accepted) that the acronym SEO meant Search Engine Optimisation; the remainder of each marked being purely descriptive.
The Hearing Officer found that the additional element in the marks means that they were not ‘exclusively composed ….” and the Section 3(1)(d) objection was dismissed accordingly.
However, the Sections 3(1)(b) & 3(1)(c) objections were upheld since “search engine optimisation” was specified in all the goods and services in the application, save for “Stationery, wall charts; diaries, notebooks and writing implements” in Class 16. The registration was permitted to proceed in respect of these goods only.