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 >> HOUSE DOCTOR (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2004] UKIntelP o24204 (5 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o24204.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o24204 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o24204
Result
Section 47(2) based on 5(4)(a)
Appeal to the Appointed Person: - Appeal dismissed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
This was an appeal to the Appointed Person of the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 2 February 2004 (BL O/032/04). On appeal it was contended that the Hearing Officer had failed to direct himself properly as to the law; had failed to take account of the descriptive and laudatory nature of the mark HOUSE DOCTOR and had failed to take full account of prior Court decisions.The Appointed Person carefully reviewed the evidence before the Hearing Officer. Like the Hearing Officer he decided that the mark HOUSE DOCTOR was not really descriptive or laudatory in relation to any goods or services and there was no evidence that the term was in ordinary everyday use in the interior design field or elsewhere at the relevant date. Secondly he confirmed the Hearing Officer’s view that the applicant for invalidation Ann Maurice had acquired a protectable goodwill in the mark HOUSE DOCTOR by the relevant date because of the screening of the television series HOUSE DOCTOR and the considerable promotion and publicity generated by the programmes.
The Appointed Person carefully reviewed the evidence before the Hearing Officer. Like the Hearing Officer he decided that the mark HOUSE DOCTOR was not really descriptive or laudatory in relation to any goods or services and there was no evidence that the term was in ordinary everyday use in the interior design field or elsewhere at the relevant date. Secondly he confirmed the Hearing Officer’s view that the applicant for invalidation Ann Maurice had acquired a protectable goodwill in the mark HOUSE DOCTOR by the relevant date because of the screening of the television series HOUSE DOCTOR and the considerable promotion and publicity generated by the programmes.
In the light of the above findings the Appointed Person went on to uphold the Hearing Officer’s decision that the application for invalidity was successful. He also concluded that the prior court decisions referred to by the registered proprietor did not assist as they related to descriptive and laudatory trade marks.
