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 >> MOTORAIL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o42600 (21 November 2000) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o42600.html Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o42600 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o42600
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 6(1)(c) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of the mark MOTORAIL in relation to the provision of car carrying services in France. It was claimed that such services were advertised in the UK by way of brochures, newspaper and TV advertising and press releases etc.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents mark had been promoted in the UK but found the evidence of reputation to be inconclusive. He concluded that the opponents had provided insufficient evidence to show that they had a goodwill in their mark in the UK. Opposition failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(2)(b) and 6(1)(c) the Hearing Officer applied the relevant provisions of the Paris Convention as set down in Sections 55 and 56 of the Act. As he had found under Section 5(4) the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents had not made a case for recognition of their mark MOTORAIL or knowledge of it by the relevant public. Thus a case had not been established that the mark was well known. Additionally Section 55(1)(b) indicates that a "Convention Country" means a country other than the UK - and the opponents are a UK business - they do not qualify for protection under this heading.