Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 June 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
Howard Skolnick & Raj Sharma t/a Ian Howard Schoolwear & Sunrise Schoolwear Centre
Navid Afzal t/a Fashion Stop
Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 3(6), 5(4)(a) & 5(4)(b)


Section 3(1)(b): Opposition failed. Section 3(1)(c): Opposition failed. Section 3(6): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • None


The mark in suit in these proceedings is a representation of the school badge of Brampton Manor School and the applicants produced consent from that school to the registration of the badge as a trade mark. It would appear that the applicants have registered a number of school badges as trade marks, with the consent of the schools concerned, and in all cases they claim to be the authorised suppliers of school uniforms to the schools concerned.

The opponent claims to have supplied sweat shirts, polo shirts and rugby shirts bearing the Brampton Manor badge to pupils at that school over the past few years and has concerns that registration of the mark in suit could effect that trade. The opponent also refers to other schools where it was authorised to supply uniforms and yet it had been threatened by the applicants re the supply of what were termed “illegal copies of the logo”. This claim is disputed by the applicants who say that they would not stop any authorised supplier providing uniforms to Brampton or any other school.

The grounds under Sections 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b) were withdrawn at the Hearing.

Under Section 3(6) - bad faith - The Hearing Officer decided that the opponent had not made out a substantive case and the fact that the applicants made one error in trying to restrict the opponent when in fact it was authorised, was not sufficient to refuse the application on this ground.

Under Section 3(1)(b) & (c) the Hearing Officer decided the mark in suit had distinctive character and that it could act as a mark of origin provided that the application had the necessary consent from the school who held the copyright and provided that they were authorised suppliers to the school in question. Opposition dismissed.

Full decision O/162/06 PDF document154Kb