Trade Mark Resources

Jane Lambert

Over the years, I have written a lot of articles about trade mark law, but I had never organized them in any way until now.  Earlier this afternoon, I compiled a resource page for trade marks similar to the one that I have created for patents.   It can be accessed by clicking "Trade Marks" in the "Basic Information" panel to the right of the page.

"Trade Marks"  discusses registered and unregistered marks in all jurisdictions.  Supplementing it are the "FAQ", an index page to some short articles that I called "Auntie Jane's Trade Mark Tips" and introductions to UK and EU trade mark law.

I mention registration of trade marks, the rights conferred by registration, examination, opposition and certification and collective marks.

Anyone requiring further information may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form. 

Applying for Trade Marks in Bad Faith

Piccadilly Circus at Night

Author Jimmy Baikovicius Licence CC BY-SA 2.0 Source Wikimedia Commons

Jane Lambert

One of the grounds on which a trade mark registration can be revoked is "that within the period of five years following the date of completion of the registration procedure it has not been put to genuine use in the United Kingdom, by the proprietor or with his consent, in relation to the goods or services for which it is registered, and there are no proper reasons for non-use" (s.46 (1) (a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994). Another is that "such use has been suspended for an uninterrupted period of five years, and there are no proper reasons for non-use" (s.46 (1) (b)).

Those provisions mitigate the abuse that Lord Kitchin identified in para [4] of his judgment in SkyKick UK Ltd and another v Sky Ltd and others [2024] UKSC 36, [2025] Bus LR 251 "where a person applies to register a mark without having made any use of it and without intending to use it in the course of trade in relation to the goods or services for which protection is sought."  The only problem is that a party objecting to such a registration had to wait 5 years before he or she could apply for the revocation of the registration.

As a result of the Supreme Court's judgment in that appeal, there is now another option. An application to register a trade mark may be opposed under s.3 (6) on the ground that the applicant does not intend to use the mark for all the goods or services in respect of which registration is sought.  A new Practice Amendment Notice (PAN 1/25) was published on 27 Jun 2025 providing guidance for applicants, examiners and opponents following that judgment.

Para 9 of PAN 1/25 requires applicants to act in good faith. They should use the registration procedure in the manner and for the purpose for which it is intended. The notice continues:

"It is, in the first instance, for applicants to satisfy themselves that they are acting in good faith. Given the Supreme Court’s guidance, a good faith filing will likely not be achieved by filing without an intention to use. That also applies to the use of general terms covering multitude of sub-categories, where intended use covers only one (or some) of those sub-categories"

Applicants should be cautious about filing claims covering vast numbers of goods and services in large numbers of classes. Caution should also be applied when the terms used to describe the listed goods/services are themselves broad.

The notice states that up to now, examiners have not routinely raised bad faith objections to overbroad specifications.  That is about to change. When examining applications (including international registrations designating the UK), examiners will consider whether the specification is so manifestly and self-evidently broad that a bad faith objection should be raised.  If an examiner raises an objection, the applicant will be allowed 2 months to provide an explanation for the specification.

Those unfamiliar with the Supreme Court's judgment should consult my case note, The Supreme Court's Judgment in SkyKick v Sky, which I posted to NIPC Law on 19 Dec 2024.   Anyone wishing to discuss this article or my case note may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours, or send me a message through my contact form at any time.

Beverly Hills Polo Club Litigation

Author Roger Schultz Licence CC BY-SA2.0 Deed Source Wikimedia Commons

  

Jane Lambert

Sometimes the same brand is owned by different businesses in different countries.  That did not matter much in the days before the Internet because the only consumers who were likely to come across the same brand in different hands would have been travellers,  Nobody minded if a tourist purchased goods marketed under a familiar label that were cheaper, better or simply not available at home while on holiday and brought them home. The only time there might have been a problem would have been if a trader imported large quantities of branded goods from overseas and attempted to resell them here. He or she would have risked an action for trade mark infringement from the owner of the brand in the United Kingdom. 

All that changed with the Internet because it created a worldwide marketplace for goods and services.  Trade marks protect brands within the country or territory for which they are registered.  They cannot prevent the use of the registered mark beyond that country or territory's shores.  There is in theory nothing to stop a consumer in the United Kingdom from selecting branded goods from a foreign website, paying and taking delivery of them abroad and arranging for a carrier to transport them home.  The consumer is not infringing any trade marks because he is not using the marks in the course of trade,  Nor is the retailer because the sale takes place abroad.  Yet such transactions would render trade marks useless in electronic commerce if they were allowed to continue.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has developed two doctrines to regulate such transactions:

• One is to treat targeting of consumers in a particular market as an infringement of the trademarks that have been registered in that market; and 
• The other is to the rule in Blomqvist's case (Case C-98/13 Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA [2014] EUECJ C-98/13, [2014] Bus LR 356, [2014] WLR(D) 47, ECLI:EU: C:2014:55, [2014] ECDR 10, [2014] ETMR 25, EU: C:2014:55) in which the Court held that the mere entry of a counterfeit watch into Danish territory entitled customs officers and the IP owner to impound it,

The concept of targeting is better developed than the rule in Blomqvist's case but the UK Supreme Court has referred to only a handful of European and English cases in support of that doctrine.

The issue arose in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others [2021] FSR 19, [2021] EWHC 118 (Ch).   The word mark BEVERLY HILLS POLO CLUB and the equestrian logo shown below are held by different entities in Europe and the United States:

Clothing and luxury goods intended for the American market are marketed on Amazon's US website.  From time to time consumers in the UK have purchased trade marked items from that site and arranged for them to be transported to their homes.  

Lifestyle Equities CV and Lifestyle Licensing BV ("Lifestyle") sued Amazon.com Inc. for trade mark infringement alleging that Amazon's US site had targeted British consumers.  The action was tried by Mr Justice Michael Green who dismissed the claim for the following reasons:

"(i) the USA website advised incoming consumers from the UK about the availability of the UK website, (ii) that this would for UK consumers produce lower delivery times and prices than the USA website, (iii) that there were statistically very few sales of the US branded goods to the UK, and (iv) that Lifestyle's purpose in bringing the claim was not so much to prevent sales to the UK but to prevent UK consumers who strayed onto the USA website learning of the low prices of the US branded goods, thereby downgrading the value of the marks."

He also distinguished Blomqvist on the basis that the sale had been made in Denmark or the watch was intended for onward sale.

Lifestyle appealed to the Court of Appeal which found that  Mr Justice Michael Green had erred in several respects.  It carried out its own assessment of the facts and found that Amazon had targeted British consumers and had therefore infringed art 9 of the EU Trade Mark Regulation and s,.10 (1) of the Trade Marks Act 1994,  It granted an injunction and an inquiry as to damages to Lifestyle (see Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others [2023] 1 All ER 905, [2022] EWCA Civ 552, [2023] Bus LR 1010, [2022] WLR(D) 199, [2023] 1 All ER (Comm) 189, [2022] FSR 20).

Amazon appealed to the Supreme Court which handed down judgment on 6 March 2024 (Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Amazon UK Services Ltd and others [2024] UKSC 8).  The Supreme Court carried out its own multifactorial assessment which led it to conclude that there had been targeting of British consumers and consequential trade mark infringement.  The Court of Appeal had erred as had Mr Justice Michael Green but as the Court of Appeal had reached the right decision the Supreme Court did not disturb its injunction or order for an inquiry as to damages.  Having found that Amazon had infringed Lifestyle's trade marks by targeting consumers it was unnecessary for the Supreme Court to make a finding on the rule in Blonqvist's case and the justices declined to do so.

Because of the numbers who use Amazon this judgment could have important and far-reaching consequences.  For those who want to learn more about this case, I have written a more detailed article in NIPC Law entitled Trade Marks: Lifestyle Equities v Amazon.  That article links to the judgments of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Mr Justice Michael Green and other materials on the Supreme Court's website.  I am also willing to discuss this case with anyone who calls me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during normal business hours or sends me a message through my contact page,

KidZania - a Mexican Multinational Enterprise centred on Branding

Bangkok KidZania

Author Banej Licence CC BY-SA 3.0  Source Wikipedia KidZania

Jane Lambert

Following a visit to the London KidZania, I wrote Branding - Catching Them Young in NIPC London on 2 Jan 2019.   KidZania describes itself as "An Indoor City Run by Kids." The London KidZania is located in the Westfield shopping centre in Shepherds Bush and consists of 75,000 square feet of replica child-size shops and offices on two floors where children aged between 4 and 14 can try their hands at all sorts of occupations.

As in real life, brands are everywhere. I spotted Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Aljazeera Media Network, the Bank of England, British Airways, Cadbury, Costa, Dorsett International, Eat Natural, Gourmet Burger Kitchen, Global, H & M, Hamptons, Innocent, K-Market, Metro, Middlesex County Cricket Club, Mission Deli, Nintendo, People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, Roland, Snazaroo, The Original Tour and many others which is how I chose the title for my article.  It is, therefore, no surprise that the World Intellectual Property Organization ("the WIPO"), the UN specialist agency for intellectual property, has published KidZania: get ready for a better world by Catherine Jewell in the latest issue of its magazine (see WIPO Magazine No 5 Oct 2019 ay page 22),

Jewell's article takes the form of an interview with  Maricruz Arrubarrena, the outgoing Chief Executive Officer of KidZania’s Mexican operations.  He explains that

"KidZania is two businesses in one. It is a family entertainment and learning centre and it is a platform for brands to engage with families."

The KidZania sites at Santa Fe, Monterrey, Cuicuilco and Guadalajara are run by  KidZania S.A.P.I. de C.V. The sites in all other countries are operated by franchisees.  Mr Arrubarrena says that "KidZania provides the intellectual property (IP), designs, themes, know-how, and operational manuals, and works with the franchisee to develop the master plan and choose the right location." He adds:

"The team responsible for managing and monitoring franchisee relationships, known as the KidZania Intelligence Agency, plays an important role in monitoring and upholding quality benchmarks. Control is very important in franchising. That is why we have very strict franchising contracts in place. Poor execution and bad service can damage our reputation."

On being asked "What role does IP play in the company?", Mr  Arrubarrena replies: "IP is central to our business model." His company owns the IP in the architectural designs and all the creative elements associated with establishing a KidZania facility and actively protects its intellectual assets.

KidZania works with 900 brands. On being asked why KidZania works with so many brands and what is in it for them, Mr  Arrubarrena says:

"Our industry partners represent the city’s businesses and activities and are a key part of the KidZania experience. Their participation adds authenticity and credibility to our activities. By working with us, brands have an opportunity to give something back to the community by supporting children’s learning. It also offers an opportunity for them to learn about the evolving tastes and needs of children and parents and to cultivate brand recognition and loyalty among them,"

With franchisees and partners in many countries,  KidZania S.A.P.I. de C.V makes full use of the Madrid system to register and manage its trade marks.

The Mexican company's business model has been spectacularly successful.  Jewell notes that "KidZania has become one of the world’s fastest growing learning and entertainment brands."  In my article, I noted that "KidZania is a transatlantic concept but from Mexico rather than the United States"  It is possible for a powerful, fast-growing, multinational business centred on branding to be developed outside North America, Western Europe or North Asia.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or branding and franchising generally should call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during UK office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

The Trade Marks Regulations 2018 - Relative Grounds of Refusal

Jane Lambert

Yesterday being Burns Night I could not resist this photo of an outsize mouse from the Burns Birthplace Museum in Alloway. This mouse may well be "sleekit" but hardly "wee" and not obviously timorous either.

In this fourth article on the new trade marks law, I consider relative grounds of refusal.  These are circumstances in which the Intellectual Property Office can refuse to register a sign as a trade mark on the ground that the registration would be incompatible with an earlier trade mark registration or application or some other intellectual property right.  This article should be read in conjunction with The New Trade Marks Law which I published in NIPC Law on 12 Jan 2019.

Readers will recall that the law has changed because certain articles of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks came into force on 14 Jan 2019. Art 55 repealed Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) with effect from 15 Jan 2019. Art 54 (1) required member states to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive by 14 Jan 2019. The legislation that implements that requirement is a statutory instrument known as The Trade Marks Regulations 2018.

The first two paragraphs of art 5 of Directive 2015/2436 are very similar to the first two paragraphs of art 4 of the previous Directive.  Art 5 (3) (a) of the new Directive is similar to art 4 (3) of the previous one.  The main difference is the insertion of new subparagraphs (b) and (c):

"Furthermore, a trade mark shall not be registered or, if registered, shall be liable to be declared invalid where:
..............................................
(b) an agent or representative of the proprietor of the trade mark applies for registration thereof in his own name without the proprietor's authorisation, unless the agent or representative justifies his action;
(c) and to the extent that, pursuant to Union legislation or the law of the Member State concerned providing for protection of designations of origin and geographical indications:

(i)  an application for a designation of origin or a geographical indication had already been submitted in accordance with Union legislation or the law of the Member State concerned prior to the date of application for registration of the trade mark or the date of the priority claimed for the application, subject to its subsequent registration;
(ii)  that designation of origin or geographical indication confers on the person authorised under the relevant law to exercise the rights arising therefrom the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark."

S.5 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides for relative grounds of refusal in the United Kingdom and the changes to s.5 that are needed for compliance with Directive 2015/2436 are made by reg 5 of the Trade Marks Regulations 2018.

That regulation goes further than is necessary for compliance with Directive 2015?2436:

"5.—(1) Section 5 is amended as follows. 

(2) After subsection (3), insert—

'(3A) Subsection (3) applies irrespective of whether the goods and services for which the trade mark is to be registered are identical with, similar to or not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is protected.'

(3) In subsection (4) (a), for 'trade, or' substitute 'trade, where the condition in subsection (4A) is met,'.

(4) In subsection (4), after paragraph (a) insert—

'(aa) by virtue of any provision of EU law, or any enactment or rule of law, providing for protection of designations of origin or geographical indications, where the condition in subsection (4B) is met, or'.

(5) In subsection (4) (b)— 

(a) after 'paragraph (a)' insert 'or (aa)'; and
(b) omit ', design right or registered designs' and substitute 'or the law relating to industrial property rights. 

(6) After subsection (4), insert—

'(4A) The condition mentioned in subsection (4)(a) is that the rights to the unregistered trade mark or other sign were acquired prior to the date of application for registration of the trade mark or date of the priority claimed for that application.
(4B) The condition mentioned in subsection 4(aa) is that—
(a) an application for a designation of origin or a geographical indication has been submitted prior to the date of application for registration of the trade mark or the date of the priority claimed for that application, and
(b ) the designation of origin or (as the case may be) geographical indication is subsequently registered.'.

(7) After subsection (5) insert—

'(6) Where an agent or representative (“R”) of the proprietor of a trade mark applies, without the proprietor’s consent, for the registration of the trade mark in R’s own name, the application is to be refused unless R justifies that action.'.

Those changes appear in the IPO's unofficial consolidation of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

The new subsection (3A) inserted by reg 5 (2) reinforces the deletion of the words

"is to be registered for goods or services which are not similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is protected" 

from s. 5 (3) (b) of the Act as originally enacted by reg  7 (1) of the Trade Marks (Proof of Use) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 946) in order to give effect to the Court of Justice's decision in Case C-292/00, Davidoff & Cie and another v Gofkid Ltd. [2003] FSR 28, [2003] EUECJ C-292/00, [2003] ECR I-389, [2003] ECR I-00389, [2003] 1 WLR 1714.

Art 5 (3) (b) of Directive 2015/2436 is implemented by the insertion of the new subsection (6).  Paragraph 9 of the IPO's Guidance Implementation of the EU Trade Mark Directive 2015 explains the reason for the insertion:

"If someone acting as your agent or representative applies for, or has registered, your trade mark in their name without your permission, you can seek to remedy the situation. The options for doing so are changing slightly, and mean that they now apply to any owner of a trade mark, whether they are based in the UK or abroad."

The next paragraph adds:

"If the trade mark has been applied for, but has not been registered, you may seek to have the application refused by opposing it. You can only do so if the mark has been published. If the mark is still pending you can ask the IPO to notify you when it is published, by filing an e-Alert. You can check the status of the mark using the search facility on the IPO’s website."

There are parallel amendments to s.47 to permit invalidity proceedings on that ground.

Reg 5 (4), (5) and (6) implement art 5 (3) (c) of Directive 2015/2436.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or trade mark law generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

The Trade Marks Regulations 2018 - Absolute Grounds of Refusal

Jane Lambert

This is the third of my articles on the changes to UK trade mark law brought about by the implementation of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks on 14 Jan 2019.  It is to be read in conjunction with The New Trade Marks Law which I published in NIPC Law on Saturday, 12 Jan 2019.

Art 4 (1) of the Directive lists signs that should not be registered as trade marks or, if registered, should be liable to be declared invalid:

"(a)  signs which cannot constitute a trade mark;
(b) trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character;
(c)  trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or services;
(d) trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which have become customary in the current language or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade;
(e) signs which consist exclusively of:

(i)  the shape, or another characteristic, which results from the nature of the goods themselves;
(ii)  the shape, or another characteristic, of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result;
(iii)  the shape, or another characteristic, which gives substantial value to the goods;

(f) trade marks which are contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality;
(g) trade marks which are of such a nature as to deceive the public, for instance, as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or service;
(h) trade marks which have not been authorised by the competent authorities and are to be refused or invalidated pursuant to Article 6ter of the Paris Convention;
(i) trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or the national law of the Member State concerned, or to international agreements to which the Union or the Member State concerned is party, providing for protection of designations of origin and geographical indications;
(j)  trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of traditional terms for wine;
(k)  trade marks which are excluded from registration pursuant to Union legislation or international agreements to which the Union is party, providing for protection of traditional specialities guaranteed;
(l)  trade marks which consist of, or reproduce in their essential elements, an earlier plant variety denomination registered in accordance with Union legislation or the national law of the Member State concerned, or international agreements to which the Union or the Member State concerned is party, providing protection for plant variety rights, and which are in respect of plant varieties of the same or closely related species."

These are known as "absolute grounds of refusal."

There are rather more grounds in this list than in the previous directive.  The main changes are the substitution of the words in art 4 (1) (e) of the 2015 Directive for those in art 3 (1) (e) of the previous one and the addition of paragraphs (i) to (l) in the new directive.  These are implemented by reg 4 of The Trade Marks Regulations 2018:

"(1) Section 3 is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after “the shape” in each place insert “, or another characteristic,”.
(3) In subsection (4)(7), after “EU law” insert “other than law relating to trade marks”.
(4) After subsection (4), insert—

“(4A) A trade mark is not to be registered if its registration is prohibited by or under—

(a)  any enactment or rule of law,
(b) any provision of EU law, or
(c) any international agreement to which the United Kingdom or the EU is a party,

providing for the protection of designations of origin or geographical indications.
(4B) A trade mark is not to be registered if its registration is prohibited by or under—

(a) any provision of EU law, or
(b) any international agreement to which the EU is a party,
providing for the protection of traditional terms for wine or traditional specialities guaranteed.

(4C) A trade mark is not to be registered if it—

(a) consists of, or reproduces in its essential elements, an earlier plant variety denomination registered as mentioned in subsection (4D), and
(b) is in respect of plant varieties of the same or closely related species.

(4D) Subsection (4C)(a) refers to registration in accordance with any—

(a) enactment or rule of law,
(b) provision of EU law, or
(c) international agreement to which the United Kingdom or the EU is a part
providing for the protection of plant variety rights.”

Those amendments have been incorporated into the Intellectual Property Office's unofficial consolidation of the Trade Marks Act 1994. 

The reason for reg 4 (2) is given in the first paragraph of section 2 of the guidance note Implementation of the EU Trade Mark Directive 2015:

"Marks which consist exclusively of shapes cannot be registered if the shape itself performs a purely technical function, adds value to the goods or results from the nature of the goods. This kind of prohibition has now been extended to cover not just shapes, but any characteristic which is intrinsic to the goods applied for. For example, a repetitive high pitched sound would be considered to be an intrinsic part of a fire alarm. An application for a mark which therefore consists of such a sound, applied for in relation to fire alarms, is likely to be subject to an objection under these provisions."

The reason for the other changes is  in paragraph (15) of the recitals:

"In order to ensure that the levels of protection afforded to geographical indications by Union legislation and national law are applied in a uniform and exhaustive manner in the examination of absolute and relative grounds for refusal throughout the Union, this Directive should include the same provisions in relation to geographical indications as contained in Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. Furthermore, it is appropriate to ensure that the scope of absolute grounds is extended to also cover protected traditional terms for wine and traditional specialties guaranteed."

There is nothing in the recitals on plant breeders' rights

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or trade marks generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact page.  Finally, if anyone is curious about the photo, it was taken at the summit of the West Nab which is near Holmfirth in the Yorkshire Pennines. A beautiful spot  which I strongly recommend.

Geographical Indications after Brexit

Stilton Cheese

Author Dominik Hundhammer

Licence Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 unported

Source Wikipedia

Jane Lambert

According to the WIPO 

"A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin. In order to function as a GI, a sign must identify a product as originating in a given place. In addition, the qualities, characteristics or reputation of the product should be essentially due to the place of origin. Since the qualities depend on the geographical place of production, there is a clear link between the product and its original place of production."

As I noted in Geographical Indications 27 May 2010 parties to the WTO Agreement are required to protect such signs by arts 22 and 23 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and art 10bis of the Paris Convention.

As I also noted in Geographical Indications HM government discharges those international obligations through trade mark law, the action for passing off and special EU legislation.  The EU legislation will cease to apply to the UK after 29 March 2019 except to the extent that it is preserved by s.2 and s.3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Paragraph 39 of the white paper on The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union states:

"The UK will be establishing its own GI scheme after exit, consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS). This new UK framework will go beyond the requirements of TRIPS, and will provide a clear and simple set of rules on GIs, and continuous protection for UK GIs in the UK. The scheme will be open to new applications, from both UK and non-UK applicants, from the day it enters into force."

If the UK leaves the EU with a withdrawal agreement the legislation for this new scheme will be passed in the implementation period that will subsist between 30 March 2019 and 31 Dec 2020.

On 24 Sept 2018 the government published Producing food products protected by a ‘geographical indication’ if there’s no Brexit deal setting out its proposals for protecting geographical indications if there is no withdrawal agreement:

"When we leave the EU we will set up our own GI schemes which will be WTO TRIPS compliant, broadly mirror the current EU regime and be no more burdensome to producers. Details to be explored in a public consultation include the UK GI logo and appeals process. The protections will be similar to those enjoyed now by UK GI producers, with all 86 UK GIs given new UK GI status automatically. The UK would no longer be required to recognise EU GI status. EU producers would be able to apply for UK GI status. We will be publishing guidance on the UK GI schemes in early 2019."

HMG expects the EU to continue to protect British products after Brexit but, should that not be the case, it advises producers to apply for GI protection as third country producers or the registration of their signs with the EU Intellectual Property Office as collective or certification marks,

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or geographical indications generally should call me on 020 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Auntie Jane's Trade Mark Tips: No. 7 - Some more Things that can go wrong

Author JulieB2768
Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0unported  

Jane Lambert

Since my last trade mark tip on 15 June 2017, the IPO has published a timeline of the Process for applying to register a trade mark.  It's a really useful graphic which does a lot of my work for me,

We are now at stage 6 - "Publication."

If you go back to the timeline you will see a note in brackets.  If the examiner has no objections your application will be published in the trade mark journal for 2 months which can be extended to 3 during which time anybody can make "third party observations."

That is true but not the note is incomplete in several important respects which will become apparent if you click the number 6 or the accompanying note on the graphic.  The graphic links to a page entitled "Check the Trade Marks Journal".

For most people, the Trade Marks Journal is about as interesting as the telephone directory and equally impenetrable but it will be examined avidly by businesses called "watch services" whose job is to spot applications for trade marks that might possibly conflict with another mark. It may also be read by your competitors who fear you may be up to something but don't yet know what and possibly by busybodies with more time on their hands than is good for them. They are the ones who could delay or even defeat your trade mark application and they will certainly waste your time and cost you money, Ugh!

If you instructed a patent or trade mark attorney to make your application on your behalf there is a good chance that most of the busybodies and maybe some of your competitors will back off because they know that your attorney will respond if they make an objection. But if they think you are on your own they may make a "third party observation" or even launch an "opposition."

Now oppositions are something you really have to worry about because they go before a hearing officer whom you may remember from my last tip.  In that article, I said that hearing officers decide disputes between applicants for trade marks and examiners. These are called "ex parte" hearings because they are between you and the examiner. Hearings between you and people who don't want you to get or keep a trade mark are called "inter partes" which literally means "between other parties". "Inter partes" proceedings are much more like trials in the civil courts than "ex parte" hearings. Parties are represented by barristers, solicitors or attorneys and the loser has to pay the winner some costs.  As Mr Trump might tweet if he is a few letters short of 140, "bad news" or even "very bad news".

Much less worrisome are "third party observations" which are made under s.38 (3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994:

"Where an application has been published, any person may, at any time before the registration of the trade mark, make observations in writing to the registrar as to whether the trade mark should be registered; and the registrar shall inform the applicant of any such observations."

The next paragraph adds:

 "A person who makes observations does not thereby become a party to the proceedings on the application."

If you click the link "object to a trade mark application" link on the "Check the Trade Marks Journal" page, you will be taken to a page headed "Objecting to other peoples trade marks and the legal costs" You will find that most of that page is on oppositions but there are the following lines on third party observations:

"At any point after we have accepted and published an application for registration, and before it is actually registered, anyone can make what we call ‘third party observations’.
You can tell us if you think that we accepted the application in error. You must bring to our attention any relevant facts of which we may not have been aware at the time we accepted the application.
Making a third party observation is not a formal legal action, and we are not bound to act on them. We may rely on evidence given in an observation to support any later objection to the application.
There are several ways to file third party observations with us."

I wouldn't bother clicking the link under "file" because it is mainly about patents. Basically, you can send your observations by post, fax, email or traipse down to Newport and hand them over to reception. If you do go to Newport you might like to check out what's at the Riverfront Theatre where you might see Ballet Cymru if you are very lucky and the excavations and museum at Caerleon (see Tip #2).

Well, that's all for now folks. Next tip will be about Oppositions.

Meanwhile. third party observations put me in mind of Alexander Pope:

"Damn with faint praise, assent with civil leer,
And without sneering, teach the rest to sneer;
Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike;
Alike reserv'd to blame, or to commend,
A tim'rous foe, and a suspicious friend."

You will find my other tips indexed here.

If you are an entrepreneur, business owner or anyone else seeking guidance on UK trade mark law, I can give you up to 30 minutes of my time for initial advice and signposting. That may not be enough time to dispose of your issue but it should be enough to define it and assess what further assistance you need, what sort of professional is best placed to supply it and how and where to find such assistance.  

 

Auntie Jane's Trade Mark Tips: No. 6 - Some of the Things that can go wrong

Author Priwo
Source Wikipedia

Jane Lambert

There are all sorts of reasons why your application to register a mark might fail.

The official who examines your application ("the examiner") may consider that your mark falls within a number of statutory exclusions. For a start, the examiner may consider that the subject matter of your application is not even a trade mark, possibly because it is not a sign, or perhaps because it can't be expressed in writing or doesn't distinguish your goods and services from those of your competitors.

Even if it is a trade mark, the examiner may object to it on the grounds that it is not distinctive, that it is descriptive of the goods or services, or common to the trade. He or she may consider your proposed mark to be offensive or it may be too similar to a royal, national or other protected emblem. Those objections are called "absolute grounds for refusal" and are set out in sections 3 and 4 of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Wherever possible, the examiner will give you an opportunity to overcome the objections. If you fail to take advantage of that opportunity or if the examiner believes that the objection cannot be overcome he or she may refuse your application.

If you think the examiner is wrong you can appeal against his decision to the Registrar of Trade Marks (that is to say the Comptroller or Chief Executive of the IPO). The Registrar will appoint an official called "a hearing officer" to consider your appeal. I have described the appeal procedure in "If the examiner says "no" - ex parte hearings in the Trade Marks Registry" 10 Aug 2015 NIPC London. That is where I or some other specialist intellectual property barrister can often help. We can advise you of your chances of success and, if necessary, represent you at the hearing before the hearing officer.

Even if the examiner has no objection to your application or you manage to overcome any objection that he or she raises, you may not be out of the woods. Someone else may object to your application and I will consider that problem next time.

Until then, I leave you with my case note on T-397/09 Prinz von Hannover v OHIM  [2011] EUECJ T-397/09  (Trade Marks: Prince Ernst August of Hanover and Brunswick etc v OHIM 6 June 2011 NIPC Law). Cheeky wasn't he!

You will find my other tips indexed here.

If you are an entrepreneur, business owner or anyone else seeking guidance on UK trade mark law, I can give you up to 30 minutes of my time for initial advice and signposting. That may not be enough time to dispose of your issue but it should be enough to define it and assess what further assistance you need, what sort of professional is best placed to supply it and how and where to find such assistance.  

Auntie Jane's Trade Mark Tips: No. 3 - Where to find the Law

Wildy's Book Shop

Photo Elisa Rolle
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 international licence
Source  Wikipedia

Updated 23 May 2022

Jane Lambert

Obviously, you find law in a law book and you find law books at a legal bookseller.  And here's a picture of one that is nearly 200 years old. Wildy & Sons positioned strategically between the Royal Courts of Justice and the barristers and other legal professionals of Lincoln's Inn is one of the sights of London. It is almost next door to The Seven Stars, one of the best and oldest pubs in London.

But I digress.  This is what you could ask for were you ever to visit Wildy's.

In Auntie Jane's Trade Mark Tips No 2, I told you about Briitish trade marks which protect brands in the UK only and EU trade marks which protect them throughout the whole of the European Union.

The law that governs British trade marks is the Trade Marks Act 1994. That Act has been amended several times since it was first enacted and you can find a convenient though unofficial consolidation on the IPO website at Unofficial Consolidated versionTrade Mark Act 1994 as amended.  The Act allows ministers to make rules for the operation of the Act which you will find in Consolidated Trade Mark Rules on the same website.  Our Act was passed to give effect to the Trade Mark Directive (Directive 2008/95/EC) which is the ultimate source of our trade mark legislation.

The law that governs EU trade marks is Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 Feb 2009 ("the EU Trade Mark Regulation"). If you compare the Regulation with the Directive you will find many similarities. That is not surprising because both sets of legislation were made by the European Council and both need to comply with international agreements such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS").

From time to time disputes arise as to the meaning and effect of the above legislation which sometimes go to court. The ultimate authority on EU law is the Court of Justice of the European Union. The highest court of the United Kingdom is the Supreme Court.  Important decisions are also made by the Senior Courts of England and Wales, their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland and IPO hearing officers.  You will find most of the relevant decisions on the British and Irish Legal Information Institute ("BAILII") website.

You will find my other tips indexed here.

If you are an entrepreneur, business owner or anyone else seeking guidance on UK trade mark law, I can give you up to 30 minutes of my time for initial advice and signposting. That may not be enough time to dispose of your issue but it should be enough to define it and assess what further assistance you need, what sort of professional is best placed to supply it and how and where to find such assistance.  

Auntie Jane's Trade Mark Tips: No. 1 - The Very Basics

Jane Lambert

If you really were born yesterday and you are not just wet behind the ears but positively soaking, you may find these animations helpful.

The first is called "Trademarks" and was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization ("the WIPO"), the specialist agency of the United Nations responsible for intellectual property, and Indecopi of Peru, with funding from South Korea.  It is about trade mark law generally and is not country specific.

By the way, we usually spell "trade mark" as two separate words in the United Kingdom and most other Commonwealth countries contrary to what the spell checks try to tell you.  Americans combine "trade" and "mark" into just one word.


Standard YouTube Licence

I hope you enjoyed that film.  Another that you may like, which is also published by the WIPO with South Korean help, is "Porro and his Friends create a Trade Mark".

Now, here is an animation from our very own Intellectual Property Office ("IPO") in Newport called "IP Basics: Should I get a Trade Mark?" The IPO's video summarizes the law here.

Standard YouTube Licence

You should be ready for my articles, "Brands" and "Trade Marks" as well as the IPO's guidance "Apply to register a Trade Mark".

If you have made it this far, you deserve a treat.  Ballet Cymru is another famous institution based in Newport.  Click this link to see those beautiful young dancers perform TIR to the mellifluous voice of Cerys Matthews.

You will find my other tips indexed here.

If you are an entrepreneur, business owner or anyone else seeking guidance on UK trade mark law, I can give you up to 30 minutes of my time for initial advice and signposting. That may not be enough time to dispose of your issue but it should be enough to define it and assess what further assistance you need, what sort of professional is best placed to supply it and how and where to find such assistance.  

Can I apply for a Trade Mark by myself or must I instruct an Attorney?

Jane Lambert

The answer is "yes".  You can apply for a trade mark without an attorney. It has been done many times before.  You will get a certain amount of practical help (though no legal advice) from the Intellectual Property Office ("IPO").  But I would not recommend it. It's a lot of trouble to save yourself a few hundred pounds and it could land you in a lot of extra expense as there are lots of pitfalls in the process.

Why you should instruct an Attorney
It takes time to qualify as a trade mark attorney.  Trainee trade mark attorneys learn about the sort of marks that are registrable and those that are not.  Attorneys know what to look out for on a trade mark search. They know how to draft your specification in a way that is wide enough to cover every business activity you are likely to undertake but not so broad that it leads to an objection. If, for any reason, there is an objection to your application an experienced attorney stands a very good chance of resolving it quickly and inexpensively.

Where to find an Attorney
If you do not already instruct a trade mark attorney here are some possible ways of finding one.  You can consult the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys' website. There is a link to a searchable database of all the attorneys in the country.  If you want a personal recommendation, I can introduce you to attorneys with whom I have worked successfully in the past.  You could also attend one of the IP clinics that the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys runs in conjunction with Business and IP Centres and PatLib libraries around the country.

What to do if you decide not to take my Recommendation
If, despite my recommendation, you decide not to instruct a trade mark attorney:

Tip #1 Read the IPO guidance very carefully.
The IPO has published the following useful guides:

• Apply to register a trade mark
• What you can and can't register
• Apply
• After you apply.

Make sure you understand everything in those documents before you do anything,

Tip #2: Carry out a thorough trade mark search

You can search the IPO, EUIPO  and WIPO databases yourself or you can ask a patent librarian to make a search for you for a small fee.

Tip #3: Make sure that your application covers all relevant goods and services 

You register a mark in respect of specified goods or services. Make sure that the goods and services in respect of which you register your mark cover not just simply the goods and services that you are supplying now but all those that you plan to supply at any time over the next 5 years.

Tip #4: If there is an objection to your application, take professional advice at once

If the examiner says that your mark is unregistrable because it falls within one or more of the absolute grounds for refusal provided by sections 3 and 4 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 or if a third party objects on the grounds that your proposed registration is too close to his or her mark then your application is in trouble. Sometimes such objections can be resolved by negotiation. If not, they may go to a hearing before an official known as a "hearing officer". Should that happen, the costs will escalate sharply.

Tip #5: Consider IP insurance

IP litigation can be ruinously expensive, especially for small and medium enterprises.  You can insure against those costs by taking out specialist IP insurance before a dispute actually arises.

Tip #6:  Engage a Watch Service

A watch service looks out for applications that are similar to yours so that you can object to a third party's application and try to hammer out an agreement at an early stage. Leeds Business and IP Library offers a very cost-effective one. Several trade mark attorneys and other commercial organizations also offer watch services.

If you are still considering whether or not to register a trade mark or if you have applied to register a trade mark and hit any of those problems, call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

AdWords and Trade Marks

Jane Lambert

Google AdWords and similar schemes with other search engines are a powerful way to promote a business as Rachael's Kitchen shows in her video which appears on Google's website.  They enable businesses to

"Be seen by customers at the very moment that they’re searching on Google for the things you offer. And only pay when they click to visit your website or call you."

Advertisers sponsor the keywords that they believe to be relevant to their offer.  Whenever a customer types those keywords into the search engine their ad appears on the search engine research page. If the customer clicks the "Call" button or the link to the advertiser's website, the advertiser pays a fee to the search engine operator.  If more than one firm wants to sponsor the same search term an automated auction takes place and the one that is prepared to pay the most gets the best spot on the results page.

That is called "pay-by-click" bidding and in the overwhelming majority of cases it is perfectly lawful. But there may be trouble if you sponsor one or more of your competitor's trade marks as a keyword for your product.  Both sides did that in a case called Victoria Plum Ltd, v Victorian Plumbing Ltd, that came before Mr Justice Henry Carr a few weeks ago.

Victoria Plum Ltd, which sells bathroom equipment, had registered the words VICTORIA PLUM as a trade mark for all sorts of goods and services.  Victorian Plumbing Ltd., which ran a similar business, had bid for the following search terms:

a) "victoria plumb" / "victoriaplumb";
b) "victoria plum"/ "victoriaplum";
c) "victorian plumb" / "victorianplumb";
d) "victorian plum" / "victorianplum";

When those words were typed into Google's search engine an advertisement for Victorian Plumbing with a link to their website would appear on the page that displaying the results of the search. Victoria Plum also bid for Victorian Plumbing's name as a search term but on a much smaller scale.

Victoria Plum sued Victorian Plumbing for trade mark infringement and Victorian Plumbing counterclaimed against Victoria Plum for passing off. The action came on before Mr Justice Henry Carr who decided for Victoria Plum on the infringement claim but Victorian Plumbing on the counterclaim for passing off. If you want to know the arguments that were used and the details of the judgment I have written a full case note for my NIPC Law blog (see Plummy 25 Nov 2016).

So the moral of this story is to take care when bidding for search terms. It may not be necessary to carry out a trade mark search on every keyword but try to avoid using the registered trade marks or corporate names of your direct competitors,

if you want to discuss this case, call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.