SUCCESSFUL SPURS OPPOSITION
Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has successfully opposed an application by Patricia Hard O’Connell and Michael O’Connell to register TOTTENHAM for metal ornaments and badges, flags and various items of clothing. The applicants’ sign was identical to that owned by the football club and the goods applied for were either identical to those for which Tottenham Hotspur owned registrations or were very similar (the football club’s specifications of goods were subject to certain limitations) leading to a likelihood of confusion.
The applicants argued that their registration should go ahead on grounds of honest concurrent use but the Hearing Officer said that honest concurrent use cannot be argued in Section 5(1) identical marks/identical goods cases because the protection granted to the registered mark proprietor in such cases is absolute. However, he thought that it could be argued in Section 5(2) cases because a history of third parties using the mark would make confusion less likely.
Get your Spurs kit here.
Tottenham Hotspur Football Club has successfully opposed an application by Patricia Hard O’Connell and Michael O’Connell to register TOTTENHAM for metal ornaments and badges, flags and various items of clothing. The applicants’ sign was identical to that owned by the football club and the goods applied for were either identical to those for which Tottenham Hotspur owned registrations or were very similar (the football club’s specifications of goods were subject to certain limitations) leading to a likelihood of confusion.
The applicants argued that their registration should go ahead on grounds of honest concurrent use but the Hearing Officer said that honest concurrent use cannot be argued in Section 5(1) identical marks/identical goods cases because the protection granted to the registered mark proprietor in such cases is absolute. However, he thought that it could be argued in Section 5(2) cases because a history of third parties using the mark would make confusion less likely.
Get your Spurs kit here.
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html