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 >> THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY IN LONDON (AU) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o06098 (18 March 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o06098.html Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o06098, [1998] UKIntelP o6098 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o06098
Result
Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition successful.
Section 3(4) - Opposition successful.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of the mark THE AMERICAN COLLEGE IN LONDON since the year 1978; some fourteen years before the filing date of this application. The opponents also filed evidence to show that the applicant was not entitled to use a trading name incorporating the word UNIVERSITY since it had been refused accreditation. Papers relating to a prosecution by the Trading Standards Officer of Islington Council were provided together with the dismissal of an appeal against conviction.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer noted the opponents use and reputation and concluded that, as the respective marks were very similar, the opponents were successful on this ground of their opposition.
As the applicant was not entitled to use the word UNIVERSITY because use of that word is controlled by The Business Names Act, and its application for accreditation had been refused, the Hearing Officer determined that the applicant's application fell foul of Sections 3(3)(b) and (4) of the Act because use of the mark would lead to deception of the public and because use of the mark in relation to the services claimed was prohibited.
