Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
23 May 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
25, 35
Applicants limited
International Data Group Inc & IDG Danmark A/S
Sections 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 3(6) & 5(4)(a)* *Objections under Sections 5(1) & 5(2) were also cited in anticipation of the second opponents own application, which was likely to be registered under the terms of the proviso to Section 3(1).


Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(1) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Registry Practice : ‘WORLD’ marks


The opposition, based on the opponents’ ownership of earlier rights in the mark JOBWORLD, was directed solely at the Class 35 part of the application. No objection was raised in respect of the goods in Class 25.

The Hearing Officer first dealt with the objections under Section 3(1). In the course of a Case Management review an officer of the Registry had already given his view that the objections under that head were not warranted. This had not been challenged by the opponents; the Hearing Officer, in the light of the Registry’s practice in relation to ‘WORLD’ marks, could himself see no objection to the mark. Those grounds failed accordingly. Neither could he see any basis for the Section 3(6) objection.

The Section 5(1) &5(2) objection had no basis since, whatever the fate of the opponents application, it would not be an ‘earlier trade mark’ in the terms of Section 6(1).

This left Section 5(4)(a) as the sole remaining ground. The opponents, however, had failed to demonstrate ownership of a goodwill in the UK.

Full decision O/217/02 PDF document296Kb