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!



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 >> BRAND PROTECT device of an Elephant (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o36206 (13 December 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o36206.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o36206

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


BRAND PROTECT device of an Elephant (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o36206 (13 December 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o36206

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/362/06
Decision date
13 December 2006
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
BRAND PROTECT & device of an Elephant
Classes
35, 42
Applicant
Brand Protect LLP
Opponent
Briffa Business Design Centre
Opposition
Section 3(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d)

Result

Section 3(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponent submitted that the mark applied for contained descriptive words and that the device element was mere embellishment. Thus the mark in suit should be refused registration.

The Hearing Officer accepted that the words in the mark BRAND PROTECT had descriptive connotations in the light of, and user of the words BRAND PROTECTION, but he noted that the device of an elephant was distinctive for the services at issue and that it is a prominent element in the mark in suit. Overall the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark applied for has distinctive character and therefore acceptable for registration. Opposition failed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o36206.html