Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
8 August 2002
Hearing Officer
Dr W J Trott
06, 12
Transframe International Limited
Metalforce Limited
Sections 3(6) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition successful

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Bad faith
  • 2. Goodwill
  • 3. Estoppel


Considering the matter under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer came to the conclusion that the position in which the parties found themselves had come about as the result of a "board-room bust up" which did not relate to ownership of the mark or the registration of it. He was therefore unable to find that there had been bad faith.

The complications in the relationship between the parties also complicated the matter under Section 5(4)(a). The Hearing Officer however, eventually found that there was a protectable goodwill in the name TRANSFRAME, belonging to the firm ‘Norton Fabricators’, who were it was claimed joint owners of the mark together with Metalforce Ltd the opponents. On the basis of this the Hearing Officer found the opposition under Section 5(4)(a) successful - although he went on to remark that the applicants (who did not attend the hearing) might have been able to construct a defence of estoppel on the basis of an implied consent to their use of the mark.

Full decision O/323/02 PDF document46Kb