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 >> PINMORE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o40600 (1 November 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o40600.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o40600

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


PINMORE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o40600 (1 November 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o40600

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/406/00
Decision date
1 November 2000
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
PINMORE
Classes
07, 35
Applicants
Hassan Talal Yousef Assali
Opponents
Pinmore Investments Limited & Abboudi Rahman
Opposition
Section 3(3)(b), Section 5(4)(a) and Section 3(6)

Result

Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition succeeded

Section 3(6) - Opposition succeeded

Points Of Interest

Summary

Mr Assali and Mr Rahman had co-operated in the design and manufacture of an Oil Recycler and a company had been set up under the name Pinmore (UK) Ltd to promote and market the product. This company traded from 1995 to 1997 when it went into liquidation with the Winding up order dated 7 May 1997. The date of filing of the applicant’s application was 25 March 1997 which is the relevant date of these proceedings. Consequently when he made his application it was not open to Mr Assali to claim proprietorship of the mark at issue since at that time Pinmore (UK) was still in existence. In view of this the Hearing Officer found the opponents to be successful in their opposition under Section 5(4)(a), "passing off" and Section 3(6) "bad faith". The opposition under Section 3(3)(b) failed since there is nothing inherently deceptive in the mark.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o40600.html