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 >> LONDON SOUTH AFRICANS RUGBY FOOTBALL CLUB (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o23206 (14 August 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o23206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o23206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23206
Result
Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent claimed to have adopted the name LONDON SOUTH AFRICA RUGBY CLUB in the year 2000 and filed evidence to show that a team under that name had played in several tournaments and festivals 15 a-side, 10 a-side and 7 a-side. Efforts had been made to join one of the Surrey leagues but the application had been turned down.
The applicant disputed the extent of the opponent’s user of the name indicated and said it had been refused league membership because it had failed to provide information to show that it had a Constitution and Rules to meet league requirements.
Additional evidence was provided by both parties and the Hearing Officer, with the agreement of the parties, accepted the evidence into, the proceedings.
With regard to the claims of the opponent the Hearing Officer noted ‘that in at least some of the tournaments mentioned it appeared that “scratch teams” had taken part under names which would last only for the duration of the tournament. Also there was no evidence to support the claim of a LONDON SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY CLUB such as list of Members, Constitution, Ground etc. Thus while the opponent may have intended to form a Rugby Club there was no indication that such a club was established or that the rugby community would view the use of the name as that of a bona fide rugby club. In the Hearing Officer’s view the opponent had not established a goodwill or reputation in the name LONDON SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY CLUB and therefore his opposition failed under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - at the first hurdle.
