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 >> LOG BOOK LOANS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2003] UKIntelP o37203 (27 November 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o37203.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o37203 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o37203
Result
Section 47(1) based on Section 3(1)(b): - Invalidity action successful.
Section 47(1) based on Section 3(1)(c): - Invalidity action successful.
Section 47(1) based on Section 3(1)(d): Invalidity action failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants explained that the mark LOG BOOK LOANS effectively describes a situation where a lender holds a car log book (registration form V5) as security for a loan. In this way the borrower gets a loan and retains the use of his car. The applicants filed details of descriptive use by the registered proprietors and also the result of an internet-search which showed descriptive use by other parties. The registered proprietors responded by saying that the other parties were licensees and that there was no evidence of use of the term before March 2001, the relevant date of these proceedings.
Taking a view of the evidence before him the Hearing Officer concluded that the applicants must fail on their Section 3(1)(d) ground as there was no evidence of use prior to the relevant date.
Under Section 3(1)(c) the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark LOG BOOK LOANS was thoroughly apt to describe the services at issue and went on to conclude that the applicants for invalidation succeeded on this ground.
The Hearing Officer also concluded that the applicants were successful in respect of Section 3(1)(b) – devoid of distinctive character – but in view of his finding in relation to Section 3(1)(c), did not feel it necessary to deal with this ground in great detail.
