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 £1, 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 >> ROYAL SHAKESPEARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o00200 (7 January 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o00200.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o200, [2000] UKIntelP o00200

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


ROYAL SHAKESPEARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o00200 (7 January 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o00200

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/002/00
Decision date
7 January 2000
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
ROYAL SHAKESPEARE
Classes
32
Applicants
Jackson International Trading Company Kurt D Bruhl Gesellschaft MbH & Company KG
Opponents
Mr J D Pope, Royal Shakespeare Company
Opposition
Sections 5(1), 5(2)(b), 5(3) and Section 99

Result

Section 5(1) - Opposition dismissed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 99 - Not a ground of Opposition

Points Of Interest

Summary

The application, which was in respect of:- 'Beers including low-alcohol and non-alcoholic beers; fruit drinks, fruit juices and Isotonic drinks', was opposed by the Royal Shakespeare Company under various provisions of Section 5, and under Section 99, 'having regard to the fact that the opponent company is incorporated under Royal Charter'. At the hearing the opponents sought to widen the pleadings to include Section 3(4), Section 4(1)(d) and Section 5(4), but this was refused.

It was conceded that there was no basis for the objection under Section 5(1); This ground was therefore dismissed. Under Section 5(2)(b) the marks were found to be potentially confusing but there was no similarity in the goods. Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer did not find tangible danger to the reputation of the opponents mark. Section 99 deals with unauthorised use and does not provide a route for a refusal of registration - such route being found in Section 4. The opposition therefore failed under Section 99.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o00200.html