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 >> DALLAS CHICKEN RIBS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o07205 (17 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o07205.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o7205, [2005] UKIntelP o07205 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o07205
Result
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition successful.
Section 5(4)(b): - Not considered.
Section 3(6): - Not considered.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent in these proceedings filed evidence to confirm its claim that it had devised an identical mark to that filed by the applicant in 1996 and had opened its first food and beverage outlet in that year. By 2004 the company had thirty four outlets run by franchisees.
The opponent also referred to the fact that it has had dealings with the applicants in the recent past. In or around October 2000 a franchise agreement had been reached with Mr & Mrs Latif in relation to premises in Green Lane Road, Leicester and they had in fact set up a business and traded under the opponent’s mark. However, they had never signed the franchise agreement nor had they paid any royalties as specified in the said agreement. The opponent submitted that it would clearly suffer damage if the application proceeded as the applicant intended to trade in the same field of business as the opponent.
The Hearing Officer considered the opponent’s evidence. While he noted that it was somewhat vague in parts, he accepted that there had been use since 1996 and that the business generated by some thirty-four food and beverage outlets throughout the UK was sufficient to provide the opponent with the necessary goodwill to mount a passing off action. It followed that if the applicants used their mark as proposed there would be damage to the opponent’s business and misrepresentation as to origin. Opposition thus succeeded under Section 5(4)(a).
