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 £5, 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 >> THE B -SAFE PROGRAME DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o19799 (12 July 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o19799.html Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o19799 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o19799
Result
Section 1(1) - Opposition failed
Section 1(1) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)b - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)b - Opposition failed
Section 5(4) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4) - Opposition failed
Section 7 - Opposition failed
Section 7 - Opposition failed
Section 56 - Opposition failed
Section 56 - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opposition based on the opponent’s registration in the USA of the mark B-SAFE in respect of behavioural based consultative and safety processes, and the use under licence in the UK of the mark, which the opponent claimed to be entitled to protection under the Paris Convention as a well known mark. In dealing briefly with the opposition under Sections 1(1) and 3(1), the Hearing Officer found no evidence as to why the mark in suit could not function as a trade mark, and in his view the mark was clearly fanciful and distinctive in character, and opposition on these grounds therefore failed.
In regard to opposition under Section 5(4), the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponent had failed to establish that either its own (international) transactions or those of its UK licensee had generated goodwill under its mark B-SAFE among UK customers. He further found insufficient evidence that use of the mark in suit at the relevant date would have led to confusion and deception amongst a substantial number of persons, and it followed that there would be no damage to the opponent. Opposition on that ground therefore failed.
The Hearing Officer accordingly further concluded briefly that he could find no basis for the opponent’s claim to protection under the Convention, or for opposition based on Section 5(2)(b) or the concurrent use provisions of Section 7.
