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 >> WEATHER GUARD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o34108 (23 December 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o34108.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o34108
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WEATHER GUARD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o34108 (23 December 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o34108
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/341/08
- Decision date
- 23 December 2008
- Hearing officer
- Mr O Morris
- Mark
- WEATHER GUARD
- Classes
- 02
- Applicant
- Moonague Limited
- Opponent
- Imperial Chemical Industries Plc
- Opposition
- Sections:- 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(d)
Result
Section 3(1)(b): Opposition failed Section 3(1)(c): Opposition failed Section 3(1)(d): Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- Assessment of the mark WEATHER GUARD in relation to paint.
Summary
The Hearing Officer noted, firstly, that the applicants had not claimed that their mark had acquired a distinctive character by reason of use. He also noted that whilst the Patent Office’s Search and Advisory Service had advised the opponent that Weather Guard would not be acceptable under Section 3(1), he knew nothing of the circumstances in which that advice had been given.
Turning to the objection under Section 3(1)(d) he concluded, in the result, that the evidence supplied did not demonstrate that the sign in issue was “customarily used” and the objection under 3(1)(d) failed accordingly.
Under Section 3(1)(c) the Hearing Officer was required to address the question of whether the mark was descriptive or merely suggestive. In the result he decided that the combination of the two words did not lend itself to descriptive use in relation to paint and the objection under Section 3(1)(c) failed also.
Under Section 3(1)(b) the Hearing Officer found that “whilst a suggestive message will be seen by the consumer there is no reason why it will not be seen as trade origin specific”. This objection also failed.