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 >> COPY CATS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o05601 (2 February 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o05601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o5601, [2001] UKIntelP o05601

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

COPY CATS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o05601 (2 February 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o05601

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/056/01
Decision date
2 February 2001
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
COPY CATS
Classes
25, 35, 38, 40, 42
Applicant
Copy Cats Copy Ltd
Opponent
Mr Wayne Brown
Opposition
Sections 1, 3, 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Sections 1 & 3 - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful

Points Of Interest

Summary

The Hearing Officer dismissed the grounds under Sections 1 and 3 because in the first instance it was clear that arguments and evidence related to a relative ground, not an absolute ground, and secondly under Section 3(6) there was no evidence filed to substantiate the claim of bad faith.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the opponent relied on his registration in Class 35 for the mark COPY CAT, device of a cat and the words "quick print" and user dating back to 1992 in respect of inter alia printing services. The Hearing officer held the respective marks to be very similar and also most of the services claimed by the applicants to be the same or similar to the opponents services.

Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - there was a similar finding, save that the list of services found to be in conflict with those of the opponent was somewhat extended. In summary, therefore, the opposition was successful but the applicants would be allowed to proceed if they restricted their application to Class 25 and a restricted list of services in Class 35.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o05601.html