Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 October 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
03, 04, 09, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 32, 35, 38, 41, 42
Channel F1 Limited
Chanel Limited
Sections 3(6), 5(2) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Not considered.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. See principal decision under BL O/248/02.
  • 2. Section 32(3). In a recent Court decision - Wyeth v Knoll Aktiengesellschaft EWHC [2002] 899 (Ch) - attention was drawn to the fact that Section 32(3) is not reflected in the European Directive and thus it may not be correct to force applicants to restrict their specifications by the use of this Section and Section 3(6).


In his decision dated 19 June 2002 (BL O/248/02) the Hearing Officer made a provisional decision under Section 3(6) in favour of the opponents. However, he allowed a period of 28 days for the applicants to rebut a claim by the opponents as regards their intention to use the mark applied for in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

The applicants filed a Statutory Declaration dated 16 July 2002 made by their Chief Operating Officer. In that declaration the applicants claimed that plans had been in existence to attract companies as sponsers, partners or co-investors with a view to these companies being licensed to use the mark at issue. These proposals had been drawn together to form a business plan which was attached to the declaration.

The opponents objected to the applicants method of response and the claims made, but the Hearing Officer accepted that the information from the applicants had been filed within time and was acceptable. In the light of the information now before him the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents failed in their ground of opposition under Section 3(6).

Full decision O/416/02 PDF document11Kb