IPO The Section 3(3)(b) and 3(6) grounds were dismissed by the Hearing Officer, as no evidence in support of them was put forward. Reviewing the law and practice in relation to surnames the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks applied for were not barred by the provisions of Sections 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b). Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks were so dissimilar as to rule out the possibility of confusion on the public. In the light of this finding the Hearing Officer went on to conclude that use of the marks would not result in any misrepresentation and hence the opposition under Section 5(4)(a) did not succeed.
Judges:
Mr M Knight
Citations:
[2000] UKIntelP o04000, O/040/00
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Abercrombie Fitch (Trade Mark: Opposition) (2) IPO 14-Feb-2000
As this application was proceeding in Part B of the Register the Section 9 ground was irrelevant and was dismissed by the Hearing Officer.
As regards the Section 10 ground the opponents filed evidence from Scottish Telephone Directories to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 12 October 2022; Ref: scu.453715
