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 >> INSIGHT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o19400 (13 June 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o19400.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o19400 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o19400
Result
Section 3(1)(a), (b) & (c) - Opposition failed
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants filed use of their mark INSIGHT so that the application could proceed to advertisement under the provisions of Section 7 - Honest Concurrent Use - in the face of marks owned by Laurentian Life and Ipsos Insight Marketing. First use was claimed from 5 September 1988.
Under Section 3 the Hearing Officer noted a claim by the opponents that the word "Insight" is used in relation to market research but felt that the claim had not been substantiated to any significant extent. He accepted that the mark INSIGHT had some descriptive connotations but felt that it was not precluded from acceptance. In any event it had the support of some six years user and this clearly allowed acceptance under the proviso to Section 3.
With regard to Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer referred to the provision of Section 7 which stated that if an applicant proceeded under that Section in the face of other firms registered marks and those firms did not oppose, then their registrations could not be used by a third party as a basis of its opposition.
When reviewing the evidence filed in these proceedings the Hearing Officer concluded that the applicants had commenced to use their mark some three weeks before the opponents commenced to use their mark. Thus the opponents had no basis for their ground of objection undr Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off.
