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 >> ZINK (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2003] UKIntelP o09303 (2 April 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o09303.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o09303, [2003] UKIntelP o9303 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o09303
Result
Section 3(1)(b) - Application for invalidation failed
Section 3(1)(c) - Application for invalidation failed
Section 3(3) - Application for invalidation failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants contended that the word ZINK being phonetically the same as the word ZINC, (and also being the German word for Zinc) the mark was objectionable under the Sections cited for any goods consisting of or incorporating zinc, and deceptive in respective of goods that might be thought to be so constituted.
The proprietor could not be contacted and hence the registration was not defended. On the basis of Section 72 however, the Hearing Officer found that the case of invalidity had to be made out.
In the Hearing Officer’s view the mark was ‘heavily stylised’ and thus did not consist “exclusively ….etc”. The stylisation also conveyed the message that it was ‘origin specific’. The application under Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) failed accordingly.
The applicants had not provided sufficient information as to how and in respect of which goods the mark might be deceptive. The Section 3(3) application therefore failed also.
