Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
23 October 1998
Hearing Officer
Dr W J Trott
Team Lotus Ventures Ltd
Group Lotus Ltd
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) 5(4)(a)(b) & 3(6)


Section 5(4)(b) - Opposition successful

Section 3(6) - Opposition successful

Section 5(4)(a) - Not considered

Section 5(2) - Not decided

Section 5(3) - Not decided

Points Of Interest

  • 1. A claim to copyright in a mark can be a strong ground of opposition - particularly if not responded to by the other party.


In this case the opponents request to amend the grounds of opposition was by way of adding an additional ground under Section 5(1) of the Act. The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of an earlier registration for the mark BIKE HART in respect of identical goods to those within the specification of the applicants application and they wished to argue that identical marks and identical goods were at issue (Section 5(1)). The request to amend was made more than twelve months after the filing of the opposition.

The applicants opposed the request on the basis that there had been a delay in making the request and also because they submitted that it was clear that the respective marks OLD BIKE MART and BIKE MART were not identical in the context of Section 5(1).

Allowing the amendment the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had filed their request as soon as the matter had come to their attention. Additionally he did not believe that they had an unarguable case in the context of Section 5(1).

Full decision O/210/98 PDF document47Kb