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!



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 >> Pool FM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o11706 (28 April 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o11706.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o11706

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


Pool FM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o11706 (28 April 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o11706

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/117/06
Decision date
28 April 2006
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
Pool FM
Classes
38, 41
Applicant
Pool FM Limited
Opponent
Garrison Radio Ltd
Opposition
Sections 3(6) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents’ use of the mark Pool FM in connection with a local radio station in Hartlepool. Before dealing with the substantive matter before him the Hearing Officer identified certain letters which appeared as exhibits in the applicants’ evidence. These, said the Hearing Officer, he would ignore as the statements made in them should have been in the form of a statutory declaration, affidavit or witness statement.

Turning to the matter under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer found that the opponents had established a small but genuine goodwill at the date of application. Given the identicality of the marks and high degree of similarity in the services he had no doubt that damage would occur if the applicants used the mark applied for. The oppositions under Section 5(4)(a) succeeded accordingly.

The oppositions under Section 3(6) failed however.

The applicants’ action in applying for the mark had been “a defensive reaction”, showing ordinary commercial prudence.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o11706.html