Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
27 September 2007
Hearing Officer
Dr L Cullen
01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39, 40
Future SM TM, Future Visionaries
Future Publishing Limited
Sections: 3(6), 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(6): Opposition Failed Section 5(2)(b): Opposition Succeeded in respect of Class 16 Section 5(3): Opposition Failed Section 5(4)(a): Opposition Failed

Points Of Interest

  • Section 3(6), intention to use the mark, Section 32(3).


The opposition under Section 3(6) was based on the opponents’ allegation that the applicant did not have a bona fide intention to use the mark in respect of the full range of the classes specified. His statement of intent made in accordance with Section 32(3) was false. This objection was directed at the entire application. The opposition under Section 5 was directed at the goods in classes 16 & 25.

The Hearing Officer dealt firstly with the Section 3(6) objection. Following a detailed review of the law and the evidence filed the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the applicant did not have a valid intention at the date of application to use the mark over the full range of the goods/services specified. He had stated that he had been writing to others inviting them to participate and this had not been disputed by the opponents. The Section 3(6) objection failed.

The Section 5(2)(b) objection succeeded in relation to all the goods in classes 16. The opponents however had not established the necessary reputation to support their Section 5(3) objection and this failed accordingly. In view of his finding under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer confined his Section 5(4)(a) assessment to the class 25 goods. He concluded however that the opponents reputation and goodwill in respect of the goods in Class 16 did not extend to the goods in Class 25 and this ground failed also. In view of the limited extent of the opposition’s success, the Hearing Officer made a small award of costs to the applicant.

Full decision O/283/07 PDF document127Kb