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 >> PARTYBUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o29902 (26 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o29902.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o29902 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o29902
Result
Section 3(1)(b): - Opposition partially successful.
Section 3(1)(c): - Opposition partially successful.
Section 3(1)(d): - Opposition failed
Section 3(6): - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
As a preliminary point, and in answer to a challenge from Counsel for the applicants, citing provisions of the Court and Legal Services Act 1990, the Hearing Officer ruled that he would hear a person nominated by the opponent as his representative, despite the fact that he was not legally qualified. The Hearing Officer stated:- that whatever the requirement of other courts and tribunals, there was no such requirement in the Registrar’s tribunal; the tribunal was intended to be low cost and informal; a party is entitled to be fully heard, in person or through a friend, and it was not for the Registrar to decide otherwise; the applicants were not unfairly prejudiced by the decision.
Reviewing the evidence (which he thought of little assistance) and using his own knowledge and experience the Hearing Officer came to the view that the mark was acceptable in relation to the Class 39 services, but offended against the provisions of Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) in respect of the Class 41 services. He could find no substance for the objection under Section 3(1)(d).
Under Section 3(6) he found that the opponent had provided no proof of his allegation, and this ground was dismissed. In view of the partial success of both sides the Hearing Officer made no order as to costs.
