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 >> RENNIE MACKINTOSH (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o14300 (27 April 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o14300.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o14300 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o14300
Result
Sections 3(1)(b) & (c) - Opposition successful
Sections 3(1)(a) & (d) - Opposition failed
Sections 3(3)(a) & (b) - Opposition failed
Sections 5(4)(a) & (b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The application proceeded on the basis of distinctiveness acquired through use, with a voluntary disclaimer of any rights to the words RENNIE MACKINTOSH, but the Hearing Officer had no difficulty in finding that in any event those words were devoid of any distinctive character in relation to the goods in question (watches), since the evidence established that the words were descriptive of goods made in the style of Charles Rennie Mackintosh and that there was significant prior use of the words by a number of traders to describe such goods. It was further found that the typeface used in the representation of the mark was the same or very similar to typefaces used by other traders in relation to goods associated with the design of Charles Rennie Mackintosh. Opposition under Section 3(1)(b) and (c) therefore succeeded, though not under Sections 3(1)(a) and (d). Opposition under Sections 3(3)(a) and (b) also failed, the Hearing Officer taking the view that use of the mark would not be contrary to public policy, or create public deception, since there was no prescribed design associated with the noted designer, and the consumer was unlikely to have a fixed idea what to expect or to purchase a watch without inspection.
Opposition under Sections 5(4)(a) and (b) was dismissed since the opponents failed to identify any relevant rights in any earlier trade mark, sign or otherwise.
