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 >> FCUK (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2006] UKIntelP o13706 (17 May 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o13706.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o13706 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o13706
Result
Section 47(1) based on Section 3(3)(a): Appeal to Appointed Person dismissed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicant had applied for invalidation on the ground that the registered mark being close to the word FUCK was registered “contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality”. In his decision dated 20 December 2005 (BL O/330/05) the Hearing Officer dismissed the application on the basis that the mark in suit was likely to be perceived as a letter mark and also because it had been in use for many years and not one complaint had been upheld in relation to use of the mark on its own.
On appeal to the Appointed Person the applicant submitted that the Hearing officer had reached the wrong decision and that the application should be allowed.
The Appointed Person did a full review of the history and background to the inclusion of Section 3(3) in the 1994 Trade Marks Act. He also reviewed a number of prior cases to clarify his approach to cases of this nature and identified eleven propositions which deserved consideration in reaching a reasoned decision in cases involving “contrary to morality”. (Paragraph 60 of his decision refers). In relation to “contrary to public policy” he concluded that this should only apply in relation to granting intellectual property rights which a court would refuse to enforce. (Paragraph 57).
In relation to the current case the Appointed Person was impressed with the evidence of the registered proprietor to the effect that there had been no complaints about use of the mark on its own and also that the registered proprietor had and has strong trading links with many well known and respected UK companies. In his view the mark in suit was not objectionable, even though it might be in some cases if used in a certain context. Therefore the Hearing Officer had been right to reject the application and thus the appeal should be dismissed.
