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 >> TARDIS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o01103 (13 January 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o01103.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o1103, [2003] UKIntelP o01103

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

TARDIS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o01103 (13 January 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o01103

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/011/03
Decision date
13 January 2003
Hearing officer
Mr M Knight
Mark
TARDIS
Classes
12
Applicant
Manhattan Corporation Limited
Opponent
The British Broadcasting Corporation
Opposition
Sections 3(6); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations and use of the marks THE TARDIS and TARDIS.

The Hearing Officer dealt with the matter first under Section 5(3). The marks being identical and the goods not similar, the matter was essentially one of reputation and detriment.

The Hearing Officer, however, could not find from the evidence that the word TARDIS had ever been used as a trade mark and hence no reputation could be established. The Section 5(3) objection therefore fell at the first hurdle but the Hearing Officer went on to consider the other aspects of the opponents’ case which, in the result, he found had no merit.

Turning to the Section 5(4)(a) objection the Hearing Officer again found that the absence of a reputation or goodwill in the mark TARDIS in respect of any goods or services was fatal to the case.

Under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer, whilst agreeing with the opponents that the mark was not coined entirely innocently (the applicants claimed it stood for Touring And Recreational Driving In Safety), he did not consider that its adoption amounted to 'bad faith'.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o01103.html