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 >> TARA JARMON (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o31199 (7 September 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o31199.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o31199

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


TARA JARMON (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o31199 (7 September 1999)

For the whole decision click here: o31199

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/311/99
Decision date
7 September 1999
Hearing officer
Mr A James
Mark
TARA JARMON
Classes
25
Applicants
Tara Jarmon
Opponents
Genesco Inc
Opposition
Sections 5(2), 5(4)(a) & 56(1)

Result

Sections 5(2)(b) and 56: - Opposition failed.

Sections 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

Opposition based on the opponent’s claim to goodwill in the UK under the trade mark JARMAN, derived from sales of relevant goods (notably shoes) to UK customers at its chain of retail shoe stores in the USA, and on the claim to that mark being well known in the UK.

The opponent’s case under Section 5(4)(a) was primarily based on evidence of sales in Florida to customers using VISA cards issued by UK banks, but the Hearing Officer found this to be inadequate for a number of reasons, notably because (a) the evidence covered a period after the relevant (priority) date, (b) it identified no UK customers or their banks and (c) it failed to identify the goods purchased. These deficiencies, in his view made it very unlikely that the opponent would succeed (on that evidence) in a passing-off action, and the opposition therefore failed on that ground.

Opposition under Section 5(2) also failed, the Hearing Officer finding briefly that the opponent came nowhere near supporting its claim that its mark was well known in the UK.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o31199.html