Decision Nº O/397/99 from Intellectual Property Office - (Trade market), 12 November 1999
| Judge | Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC |
| Date | 12 November 1999 |
| Registration Number | UK00002000360 |
| Administrative Decision Number | O/397/99 |
| Court | Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom) |
-1-
X:\GH\MAAS.doc
IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION No. 2000360
IN THE NAME OF MAASLAND NV
TO REGISTER A THREE-DIMENSIONAL TRADE MARK
IN CLASS 7
_________________
DECISION
__________________
On 7th January 1999 Mr. Allan James, Principal Hearing Officer, issued a decision
on behalf of the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting an application by Maasland NV (“the
Applicant”) to register the shape of a tine for use as a trade mark in relation to “machines
and implements included in Class 7, all for use in agriculture and horticulture and parts
and fittings included in Class 7 for all the aforesaid goods”.
The shape was represented photographically in the application for registration in
the following manner:
-2-
X:\GH\MAAS.doc
The Trade Marks Registry initially raised objections to registration under Sections
3(1)(a), 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Evidence was then filed on
behalf of the Applicant with a view to demonstrating that the shape in question possessed
a distinctive character developed or acquired through use prior to the date of the
application for registration (31st October 1994). However, the Registry maintained its
objections and raised further objections to registration under Sections 3(2)(a), 3(2)(b) and
3(2)(c) of the 1994 Act.
A hearing was appointed to enable the Applicant to make representations in
support of its application. This took place on 5th May 1998. The Applicant filed further
evidence, before and after the hearing, in an attempt to persuade the Principal Hearing
Officer that the shape of the tine put forward for registration was properly registrable
under the 1994 Act. Registration was nevertheless refused under Sections 3(1)(a),
3(1)(b), 3(2)(b) and 3(2)(c) of the Act.
It was contended on behalf of the Applicant that the configuration of the bulbous
end of the tine and, to a lesser extent, the configuration of the fixing end imparted a
distinctive character to the shape of the tine as a whole. The Principal Hearing Officer
disagreed. He considered that neither of the features identified by the Applicant was
“unnecessary for the achievement of a technical result” and that the degree of
arbitrariness involved in the design of those features did not rise above the level of trivial
embellishment. He noted that the Applicant had educated the public to believe that the
To continue reading
Request your trial