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 >> CRYSTAL AIR FRESHENER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o23904 (9 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o23904.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o23904 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23904
Result
Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition successful.
Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition successful.
Section 3(3)(b) Opposition partially successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
As a preliminary matter the Hearing Officer dealt with a request by the applicants to withdraw an amendment to the specifications, an amendment which they had proposed and which had been accepted by the Registrar at an earlier stage in the registration process. The Hearing Officer refused the request; the applicants had limited the specification they could not now expand it; it was an attempt to circumvent Section 39(2) of the Act. The opposition would therefore be decided on the basis of the amended specifications.
Under Section 3(1)(c) the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks described goods which contain crystals or which could be used to dispense aromas from crystals, or for dispensers which are in the form of crystals.
Their registration would also be contrary to Section 3(1)(b), he decided.
Under Section 3(3)(b) the Hearing Officer found the evidence suggested there was a sizeable body of consumers who knew of the various uses of crystals. It would not be “only the careless or the stupid who would be deceived”. Registration of the Class 3 or Class 5 specifications would be contrary to Sections 3(3)(b) he decided.
Finally the Hearing Officer asked himself (and invited submissions upon) whether the ECJ judgement in Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau concerning exclusions in specifications, had any bearing on this case. In the result, he decided that it did not.
