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!
 |
[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 >> PARTY IN THE PARK 95.8 CAPITAL FM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o41202 (14 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o41202.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o41202 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o41202
Result
Section 3(1)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(c): - Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(d): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on the fact that they had earlier applied for registration of the mark PARTY IN THE PARK and had been refused registration by the Trade Mark Registry, following a hearing, because the mark was considered descriptive and non-distinctive. The opponents also filed details of use from 1992 onwards and they submitted that the mark was used by third parties in a descriptive capacity.
The applicants also claimed to have used the mark PARTY IN THE PARK from 1992 onwards and claimed the mark was associated with the name of their company. The applicants' evidence was disputed and criticised by the opponents as being vague and not substantiated.
Under Section 3(1)(b) the Hearing Officer had no hesitation in holding that the words PARTY IN THE PARK were generic and descriptive and went on to consider the acceptability of the marks in their totality, bearing in mind the presence of 95.8 CAPITAL FM'S and device. Taking this additional matter into account the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks possessed distinctive character and were thus acceptable for registration. Opposition failed on this ground.
Opposition also failed under Section 3(1)(c) and (d) for the same reasons as under Section 3(1)(b).
