Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
18 April 2007
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
32, 33
New Century Intellectual Property Investments Limited
Fremantlemedia Operations B.V. and 19 TV Limited
Sections 5(1), 5(2)(a), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & 56


Section 5(1): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(a): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition successful. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • It would appear that the applicant has registered, or has tried to register, the name of other well known TV shows as trade marks.


The opponents own registrations for the mark POP IDOL and POP IDOL with star device in an oval border in a number of Classes including Classes 30 and 35. It also filed evidence of extensive use and reputation in relation to a television show with the POP IDOL name and associated names such as POP IDOL RESULT and POP IDOL FINAL. There was also associated licensing of the marks for the merchandising of goods but this evidence was somewhat general in nature and not well focused. Goods mentioned included computer and video games, karaoke apparatus, CDs; DVDs, T-shirts, posters etc.

Under Section 5(1) and 5(2)(a) the Hearing Officer accepted that identical and very similar marks were at issue but as the respective goods and services were not similar the opponent failed on these grounds.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer noted that the opponents had a reputation in their marks in relation to a television show and he concluded, in the absence of any challenge from the applicant, that use by the applicant would cause damage to the opponents’ marks by way of dilution and by using their reputation as a springboard for its goods. Also the applicant had provided no explanation as to why it had adopted the mark in suit. Opposition succeeded on this ground.

Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer decided that the proved fields of activity were too far apart for the opponents to succeed. They also failed in the ground under Section 56 as this ground was not supported by any evidence filed in the proceedings.

Full decision O/106/07 PDF document71Kb