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 >> GLENLOMOND (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49801 (12 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o49801.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o49801 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o49801
Result
Section 3(3)(b) Opposition failed
Section 3(6) Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The essential ground of opposition in these proceedings was under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off. The opponents had used their mark GLENLOMOND since 1978 in relation to fire surrounds and mantels and there was some limited use in relation to gas and electric fires (the goods of interest to the applicants). However, sales were modest; there was little promotion of the goods; there was no evidence that the gas and electric fires had been branded with the GLENLOMOND mark and there was little evidence to show how the opponents’ goods were sold and marketed under the mark. In the absence of detailed evidence as to the extent of goodwill and reputation, the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective goods were different. The opponents failed on this ground of their opposition.
In view of the Hearing Officer’s decision under Section 5(4)(a), he concluded that the mere fact that the applicants had been aware of the opponents business when they filed their application was not sufficient to justify a finding of bad faith under Section 3(6). He also considered that as Section 3(3)(b) had not been supported by evidence to substantiate the claims made in the pleadings, the opponents also failed on this ground.
