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 >> RED LETTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o15003 (4 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o15003.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o15003 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o15003
Result
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent’s opposition quoted a number of other grounds and they filed evidence in support of those grounds. However, only the objection under Section 3(1)(b) was pursued on the basis that the mark lacks distinctive character since it is in effect a well known term “Red Letter Day” which is used to indicate a special event. Indeed in information before the Hearing Officer it was clear that this claim was reinforced by the applicants’ method of use of their mark where “Red Letter Days” was frequently referred to.
The Hearing Officer accepted that the mark had some significance in relation to the applicants’ core activities of providing gift experience services but the mark was allusive rather than descriptive and he therefore accepted that it was capable of acting as an indication of origin, not only for the core services on offer but also associated goods which might be provided as gifts. Opposition thus failed on a prima facie basis.
The Hearing Officer went on to consider the evidence of use filed by the applicants in support of their application. This covered a period of some ten years and had been accompanied by extensive advertising. The Hearing Officer accepted that the marks applied for were factually distinctive in relation to the applicants core activities but was less certain in relation to the associated goods for which registration was sought. If he had not accepted the mark in the prima facie he would have accepted it only for Classes 41 and 42 on the basis of the evidence filed and refused registration for the goods classes.
