Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/099/04
Decision date
13 April 2004
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
REEDBASE
Classes
35
Registered Proprietor
Reed Business Information Limited
Applicant for a Declaration of Invalidity
Reed Solutions Plc
Application for Invalidation
Section 47(1) (citing Section 3(1)(b)) & 47(2) (citing Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a))

Result

Application for invalidation citing Section 3(1)(b): - failed.

Application for invalidation citing Section 5(2)(b): - failed.

Application for invalidation citing Section 5(4)(a): - failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks REED v REEDBASE.

Summary

At the outset, following the hearing of a preliminary point the Hearing Officer refused a request for the filing of further evidence, which had been put forward only 6 days prior to the date of the substantive hearing.

Under Section 3(1)(b), the Hearing Officer rejected the contention that the mark was not inherently distinctive. It was origin specific, not origin neutral and would not be viewed as a surname mark, he found. The Section 3(1)(b) objection failed accordingly.

Under Section 5(2)(b), the applicant alleged a clash between their mark REED, registered in respect of "employment agency services included in Class 35", and the mark in suit REEDBASE, registered in respect of "business and commercial information services; computer based storage and retrieval of business commercial and of advertising information; business research; all included in Class 35". The Hearing Officer found both the services and the marks to be not similar and on a global appreciation he found no likelihood of confusion.

This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) also.

Full decision O/099/04 PDF document54Kb