Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
30 September 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
09, 25, 28, 41
Diveology Ltd
Kathleen King Flanagan, Derek Flanagan & Diveology Ltd
Sections 3(1)(c); 3(1)(d); 3(6) & 5(4)(a); the opponents also claimed the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Paris Convention


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

Section 3(1)(d): - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

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

Paris Convention Article 8: - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • Paris Convention Article 8: "…. Has not been implemented in United Kingdom legislation and so cannot represent a basis of a claim in this jurisdiction."


The opponents’ case was based on their use of the name DIVEOLOGY in connection with their diving business in the Republic of Ireland. Neither side appeared to have been professionally advised or represented.

On the basis of the evidence before him the Hearing Officer quickly dismissed the objections under Section 3(1), which, he said, appeared to have been based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of that part of the Act. Neither did the evidence support anything other than a conclusion that the names had been arrived at by coincidence. The Section 3(6) objection was therefore dismissed.

The deficiencies in the evidence likewise undermined the opponents’ case under the remaining grounds in Article 6 bis and 8 of the Paris Convention and Section 5(4)(a) of the Act. The opposition therefore failed in total.

Costs were awarded to the applicant, adjusted to reflect their status as a litigant in person

Full decision O/271/05 PDF document5.47Mb