BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> SENIOR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o02098 (6 January 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o02098.html Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o02098, [1998] UKIntelP o2098 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02098
Result
Sections 3(1)(a)(b)(c) & (d) - Opposition partially successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 6(1)(c) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their use of the terms PLUS, JUNIOR and SENIOR to differentiate variations of software products and they in fact used the mark CHECKBOOK SENIOR on a modest scale from 1994 up to the date of the applicant’s application in March 1995. They also claimed use of the term by two other software houses but the evidence filed to support such claims was, at best, inconclusive. The applicants claimed their mark SENIOR had been in use from 1986 onwards.
Under Section 3 the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark failed to qualify for registration in the prima facie but taking into account the applicants extensive use he concluded that the mark was distinctive in relation to a range of computer software in Class 9 (and associated goods in Class 16) and that the application could proceed in respect of such goods.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer decided that the opponents had failed to present an arguable case under this head and, on the basis of the evidence filed, they failed on this ground. Similarly they failed under Section 6(1)(c) since they had failed to show that SENIOR was a well known mark in the context of their products.
