 |
[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 >> THINK FARM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o00606 (6 January 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o00606.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o606, [2006] UKIntelP o00606 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o00606
Result
Section 3(6): Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The background to these proceedings establishes the basis of the dispute. Both the applicant and opponent were managers of a company 4i Limited which offered creative and IT services. The company encountered financial difficulties and following advise from an outside consultant the decision was taken to put the Company into voluntary receivership. It would appear that the applicant had not fully supported this decision.
Following the appointment of a receiver, the receiver put together a package of assets and work in progress and invited bids. The applicant bid for some parts of the package but the opponent in conjunction with colleagues applied for the whole package. Prior to the bid they had decided on a company name THINKFARM and applied to register the name, contact was made with a bank, Inland Revenue, and the VAT Authorities. All this occurred prior to the shareholders meeting and winding up of 4i Limited on 27 February 2004 and the disposal of the package of assets to the opponent’s company on the same date. Mr Anderson applied to register the mark THINKFARM on 5 March 2004.
The Hearing Officer considered THINKFARM to be an unusual name and he accepted that the name had been adopted by the opponent’s company prior to the filing of the application by the applicant. He was not impressed by the applicant’s explanation as to how he had come to adopt the mark in suit. The Hearing Officer considered the application was to obstruct the opponent’s new business venture and that such behaviour fell short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour. Opposition thus successful under Section 3(6).