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 >> SQUIRREL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o52902 (23 December 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o52902.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o52902

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


SQUIRREL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o52902 (23 December 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o52902

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/529/02
Decision date
23 December 2002
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
SQUIRREL
Classes
35, 39
Applicants
Squirrel Storage Limited
Opponents
Squirrel Thames Valley Ltd
Opposition
Section 5(4)(a)* (*An objection was also taken under Section 3(6) but was not pursued)

Result

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful

Points Of Interest

Summary

The Hearing Officer found:- (i) that the opponent's trade was genuine and real and, though small, had created a protectable goodwill and (ii) that the services set out in the Class 39 application were very similar to those in which the opponents had established that goodwill and the marks were identical. He therefore had to consider the extent of the opponents' protection, since their activities had taken place in a small geographical area.

The difficulty of making a finding on the adequacy or reasonableness of a geographical limitation was removed however when it was noted that the 'self-storage' facilities in which the opponents were engaged were different in their nature from the 'storage' services specified by the applicants. The application was therefore allowed to proceed with 'self-storage' excluded from the specification.

The Hearing Officer regarded this as a 'score draw' and he awarded costs to neither party.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o52902.html