Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/368/06

Decision date

14 December 2006

Hearing officer

Mr M Foley

Mark

HYPER GLUE

Classes

01, 16

Applicants

Bostik Limited

Opponents

Henkel KGAA

Opposition

Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c) & 3(1)(d) (an objection was also raised under Section 3(1)(a) but as this would stand or fall together with the other objections, the Hearing Officer made no specific finding on it).

Result

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

Points Of Interest

• HYPER GLUE : ‘neither descriptive of the goods (ADHESIVES) nor of a characteristic of them’.

Summary

The goods specified in the application were ‘adhesives’. ‘Taken as whole’ the Hearing Officer did not accept that the evidence showed that HYPER GLUE was a sign that had become customary in the trade in relation to the goods applied for.

The Section 3(1)(d) opposition failed.

The Hearing Officer could see no reason why the words could not fulfil the essential function of a trade mark. The Section 3(1)(c) objection failed also. Neither was it devoid of distinctive character (Section 3(1)(b).

The opposition therefore failed on all grounds.

---

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o36806.html