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!



BAILII [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 >> MAGIC (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o44601 (9 October 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o44601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o44601

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


MAGIC (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o44601 (9 October 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o44601

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/446/01
Decision date
9 October 2001
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
MAGIC
Classes
35, 38, 41
Applicant
Emap Radio Limited
Opponent
Radio Maldwyn
Opposition
Sections 3(1)(b) & (c) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Sections 3(1)(b) & (c): - Opposition partially successful

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on a claim that the applicants mark was laudatory and that they themselves had used it as part of a name in relation to radio broadcasting services in Wales. The applicants had used their mark prior to application and had filed evidence to support a claim that their mark MAGIC had acquired distinctiveness through use.

Under Section 3(1)(b) & (c) the Hearing Officer considered the laudatory nature of the word MAGIC and concluded that on a prima facie basis it was not a distinctive mark. However, taking account of the evidence he considered that it was distinctive in relation to the services where use had taken place - radio broadcasting services (Class 38) and radio entertainment services (Class 41). He determined therefore that the application could only proceed in respect of these services and that all other services claimed must be deleted from the application, if it was to proceed.

With regard to Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer concluded that the applicants had used their mark before the opponents commenced to use their mark. Claims to earlier use by the opponents were not substantiated so they failed on this ground.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o44601.html