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!
 |
[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 >> travel4less / travel4less.co.uk (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o07904 (19 March 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o07904.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o07904, [2004] UKIntelP o7904 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o07904
Result
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition successful Section 3(1)(c) - No formal finding Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful Section 5(3) - Opposition failed Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 3(1)(c) - No formal finding
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful
Points Of Interest
Summary
The Hearing Officer began with a review of the opponents' claim of reputation; he applied his resultant findings as appropriate in his later detailed considerations.
The objection under Section 3(1)(a) was dismissed as the Hearing Officer did not agree that the mark, even if objectionable on other grounds, was of such a nature that it could never act as a trade mark.
Having considered the mark as a whole the Hearing Officer was of the view that the sign was a promotional message and identified characteristics of services relating to travel and costing less. In the absence of acquired distinctiveness it was devoid of any distinctiveness. Registration would be contrary to Section 3(1)(b); the mark was therefore refused in its entirety and the Hearing Officer did not go on to consider the matter under Section 3(1)(c).
There was no evidence of reputation supporting the opponents’ claim under Section 5(3); this ground was dismissed.
The opponents' mark was TRAVEL 4. There was a degree of similarity in the marks, and in some of the services. In the result the Hearing Officer upheld the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) in respect of Classes 39 & 42.
The opposition under Section 5(4)(a) was also upheld in respect of the Class 39 & Class 42 specifications and dismissed in respect of Class 35 & Class 41.
