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!



BAILII [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 >> YTV DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o04299 (4 February 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o04299.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o04299, [1999] UKIntelP o4299

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


YTV DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o04299 (4 February 1999)

For the whole decision click here: o04299

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/042/99
Decision date
4 February 1999
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
YTV & DEVICE
Classes
38
Applicants
Mastering ComÁrcio Empreendimentos E ParticipacÔes Ltda
Opponents
Yorkshire Television Limited
Opposition
Sections 3(3)(a); 3(6); 5(1); 5(2); 5(3); 5(4)(a); 5(4)(b)

Result

Section 3(3)(a): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 3(3)(a): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(1): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(1): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(2): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(2): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(3): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(3): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(4)(b): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(4)(b): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition , based on relative grounds, was misconceived under the absolute grounds of Section 3(3)(a); this ground was dismissed. Under Sections 5(1)(2) and (3), the opponents did not qualify. Under 5(4)(b), the opponents had not shown any earlier rights under copyright design or registered design. Consequently the matter fell to be considered under Section 5(4)(a), and the Hearing Officer did not find in favour of the opponents under this head. Finally, the Hearing Officer found that the Section 3(6) ground, based on an absence of intention to use the mark had not been made out.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o04299.html