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 >> TOTTENHAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o15002 (8 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o15002.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o15002 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o15002
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(c) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents filed evidence to show that they had traded for a number of years and sold goods such as football memorabilia bearing the word TOTTEHNAM. All such goods related to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club and evidence from other traders was to the same effect.
Insofar as the grounds of opposition were concerned the Hearing Officer decided that the word TOTTENHAM was not devoid of distinctive character since in his view it could indicate the origin of goods if used as a trade mark.
Tottenham is of course a geographical name since it makes up one third of Haringey, a London Borough. However, such evidence as was before him, indicated to the Hearing Officer that use of Tottenham indicates the football club and there was no evidence that Tottenham had a reputation for any goods or services not associated with the football club. As regards the future the Hearing Officer considered the nature of the locality and concluded that it was unlikely that others would wish to use the name to indicate geographical origin since owing to the nature of the area it was unlikely to change its industrial or commercial areas other than on a limited basis. Therefore, TOTTENHAM did not need to be kept free because of possible use in the future. Opposition thus failed.
