IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful. Section 3(1)(c): – Opposition failed. Section 3(2)(c): – Not considered. The opponent in this case is another chocolate manufacturer and trader in chocolate products. This case refers to the fact that another manufacturer Ludwig Schokolade of Germany manufactures a similar shaped product … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/286/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(2) – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b) – Opposition successful. Section 3(1)(c) – Opposition failed. Section 1(1)(d) – Opposition failed. Section 3(2)(c) – Not considered Section 32(2)(d) – Opposition successful. The opponent in this case is a major retailer of food products including confectionery. It files evidences from a German chocolate manufacturer … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/288/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful. Section 3(1)(c): – Opposition failed. Section 3(2)(c): – Not considered. The opponent in this case is another chocolate manufacturer and trader in chocolate products. It refers to the fact that another manufacturer Ludwig Schokolade of Germany manufactures a similar shaped product and … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/287/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

IPO Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a): – Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(b): – Opposition successful. Section 3(2)(c): Not considered. The opponent in this case is a German manufacturer of confectionary products including chocolate bars and it claimed to have provided chocolate bars of a similar shape and style from 1990 onwards to a number of UK firms … Continue reading Device Only (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) (O/285/04): IPO 21 Sep 2004

Objection that mark is customary within the trade. Citations: [2009] UKIntelP o14709 Links: Bailii Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Intellectual Property Updated: 16 October 2022; Ref: scu.457355

IPO Opposition based on opponent’s registration of a TWIN CHEF device mark in Class 30. The opposition related to the same application under consideration in SRIS O/186/01, and the opponent relied on largely the same evidence and argument, but cited a different device mark. However, the Hearing Officer came to the same findings, dismissing opposition … Continue reading Pizza Pizza (Trade Mark: Opposition) O/187/01: IPO 19 Apr 2001

IPO Opposition based on opponent’s various registrations (Community and UK) of a TWIN CHEFS device mark in Classes 29, 30 and 32. In regard to opposition under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer accepted that identical goods and services were involved under the respective marks, and that the opponent’s mark had a reasonably high distinctive character, … Continue reading Pizza Pizza (Trade Mark: Opposition) O/186/01: IPO 19 Apr 2001

The shape of a bottle, and patterns impressed on it, were insufficiently distinctive to be registerable as Trade Marks. The distinctiveness is assessed by reference to the object alone, not by reference to the marketing activity surrounding it. Citations: Gazette 03-Mar-1999, Times 17-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 684 Statutes: Trade Marks Act 1994 3(1)(b) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Procter and Gamble Limited v Registrar of Trade Marks: CA 29 Jan 1999

The court was asked whether a trade mark consisting of the shape of goods (a three headed rotary electric shaver) could be valid. In earlier proceedings a representation had been found incapable of registration representing only the function of the . .