Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
10 April 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
Wendy Schiazza
Mrs Tarlochan Singh Kaur
Section 3(6)


Section 3(6): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • None


In her opposition the opponent claimed that she had operated a manicure business under the name NAIL CITY from April 2002 and had incorporated a company under the name Nail city Limited on 2 October 2003. In October 2003 the applicant advised the opponent that she owned the name NAIL CITY under a franchise agreement and filed the application in suit in November 2003. Following an exchange of correspondence the opponent left the applicant’s premises and set up her manicure business nearby under the name CITY NAILS by Tara.

The applicant filed evidence to show that she had been granted a franchise to use the names TAN CITY and NAIL CITY by the firm Goldencare Limited (now in liquidation). The opponent had been allowed to use the name MAIL CITY while operating out of the applicant’s premises but she had never been granted any rights in the name. The applicant claimed that it had always been her intention to use both names TAN CITY and NAIL CITY when she acquired the necessary skills to operate a manicure business.

The Hearing Officer considered carefully the papers before him, including submissions from the parties and considered that the applicant had proved purchase of a franchise agreement to use the mark NAIL CITY and there was no bad faith under Section 3(6) in applying for registration. In her submissions the applicant changed the direction of her attack by claiming that others had been franchised to use the name NAIL CITY. However, this was not raised in the pleadings and there was no evidence in relation to such a claim. In conclusion the Hearing Officer decided that the applicant’s opposition failed.

Full decision O/096/06 PDF document34Kb