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 >> 118551 (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2004] UKIntelP o25304 (18 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o25304.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o25304 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o25304
Result
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(1)(d) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(3)(a) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The mark applied for was one of a series of numbers prefixed 118 allocated by OFTEL for use in connection with directory enquiry services. The opponent had been allocated the number 118500.
The Section 3(6) objection was quickly dismissed by the Hearing Officer as no case in support of it had been made out.
The Hearing Officer then turned to a consideration of the matter under Section 3(1). A numeral could operate as a trade mark; it could indicate the services of a particular provider; it was 'bi-functional' and having been allocated by OFTEL it was not one which other traders could or should wish to use in relation to the goods or services; in the particular market at issue, the customer was in fact able to distinguish between the competing 118…..numbers. The mark met the requirements of Section 3(1)(c) and that ground of opposition failed accordingly. The opponent’s case under Section 3(1)(b) was no stronger and that ground failed also.
Whilst the prefix 118 denoted a DQ number, there was no indication that the full six digit number was customarily used in trade to indicate goods or services other than those of the applicant. The Section 3(1)(d) objection failed accordingly.
Under Section 3(3) the Hearing Officer did not accept that OFTEL would have viewed the allocation of 118…..numbers as inhibiting the ability of any other 118…..number holder from exploiting that number in the market place. These grounds also failed therefore.
