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 Ā£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 >> APRES SPORT PRO -TAN ACTIVE BOD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o22303 (7 August 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o22303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o22303

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


APRES SPORT PRO-TAN ACTIVE BOD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o22303 (7 August 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o22303

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/223/03
Decision date
7 August 2003
Hearing officer
Mr S P Rowan
Mark
APRES SPORT PRO-TAN ACTIVE BOD
Classes
03
Applicant
James Forrest
Opponent
Performance Brands Inc
Opposition
Sections 3(1)(b); 3(1)(d); 3(6) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(1)(d) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.

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

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponent objected on absolute grounds but also as owners and users of the unregistered mark PRO-TAN.

The Hearing Officer dismissed the grounds under Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(d) since the mark, as a whole, could not be said to be devoid of distinctive character nor to consist exclusively of signs or indications customary in the relevant trade.

The opponent likewise failed to establish bad faith. The Section 3(6) ground was dismissed.

The opponent also failed to show the necessary goodwill and reputation, and accordingly failed under Section 5(4)(a)



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o22303.html