The opposition was based on the fact (generally accepted) that the acronym SEO meant Search Engine Optimisation; the remainder of each marked being purely descriptive.
The Hearing Officer found that the additional element in the marks means that they were not ‘exclusively composed . . .’ and the Section 3(1)(d) objection was dismissed accordingly.
However, the Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) objections were upheld since ‘search engine optimisation’ was specified in all the goods and services in the application, save for ‘Stationery, wall charts; diaries, notebooks and writing implements’ in Class 16. The registration was permitted to proceed in respect of these goods only.
Citations:
[2008] UKIntelP o28108
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457188