The Trade Marks Act 1994 has been in force in the United Kingdom since 30 October 1994. The occasional item of litigation under the old law, the Trade Marks Act 1938, still crops up. EI du Pont de Nemours & Co v ST Dupont is a case in point. US fabrics manufacturer EI du Pont de Nemours applied to register DU PONT in class 25 (clothing); French company Dupont opposed on the basis that the mark was not, and could not be, distinctive; Dupont later sought to amend the opposition by pleading that DU PONT was also a common French surname. A further ground of opposition was that use of the DU PONT trade mark would be deceptive since Dupont had used it for a long time. Before the Registry the Hearing Officer dismissed the opposition and refused to allow the amendment. On appeal Neuberger J allowed both the amendment. In parallel proceedings between the two parties Dupont applied to register the single word DUPONT, also for clothing in class 25. Reversing the decision of the Hearing Officer, Neuberger J rejected EI du Pont de Nemours’ opposition.
The Court of Appeal restored the Hearing Officer’s decision for a variety of reasons, largely evidential. In particular it held that Neuberger J should not have taken notice of the fact that Du Pont was a common French surname which was listed more than 800 times in the Paris telephone directory: the fact that a surname was common in Paris was irrelevant to the question whether it could serve as a surname in the United Kingdom. Also, given the extent of EI du Pont de Nemours’ use of the DU PONT trade mark in relation to fabrics, it could not be said that its use of the same mark in relation to clothing would be deceptive.
The IPKat applauds the Court of Appeal’s reasoning on the frequency of French names and notes that the current criteria for absolute bars to registration as a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994 do not expressly include the fact that a trade mark is also a common surname. When the ECJ’s ruling on the registration of surnames comes out in Nicholls’ case , we will all be the wiser for it.
More on French surnames here, here and here
Lyrics to Monsieur Dupont here
The Court of Appeal restored the Hearing Officer’s decision for a variety of reasons, largely evidential. In particular it held that Neuberger J should not have taken notice of the fact that Du Pont was a common French surname which was listed more than 800 times in the Paris telephone directory: the fact that a surname was common in Paris was irrelevant to the question whether it could serve as a surname in the United Kingdom. Also, given the extent of EI du Pont de Nemours’ use of the DU PONT trade mark in relation to fabrics, it could not be said that its use of the same mark in relation to clothing would be deceptive.
The IPKat applauds the Court of Appeal’s reasoning on the frequency of French names and notes that the current criteria for absolute bars to registration as a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act 1994 do not expressly include the fact that a trade mark is also a common surname. When the ECJ’s ruling on the registration of surnames comes out in Nicholls’ case , we will all be the wiser for it.
More on French surnames here, here and here
Lyrics to Monsieur Dupont here
COMMON FRENCH NAMES REGISTRABLE AS UK TRADE MARKS
![COMMON FRENCH NAMES REGISTRABLE AS UK TRADE MARKS]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
Rating:
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