Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In our previous post we looked at the “prima facie” registrability of trademarks and the practical benefits of registering a trade mark. In this post we’ll take a look at when a prima facie registrable trade mark can and may be refused registration on absolute grounds. In the next post in this series we’ll look at the relative grounds for refusal.

A mark can be refused registration under the Trade Mark Act 1994 if it meets any of the criteria for absolute refusal.  The absolute grounds for refusal are as follows:

The mark doesn’t meet the requirements to allow it to be prima facie registrable under s.1(1) Trade Mark Act 1994 (s.3(1)(a) TMA 1994)

If the mark does not possess the necessary characteristics to allow it to be prima facie registrable then this is obviously a barrier to its registration. This ground of refusal would apply, for example, if the mark couldn’t be described in written form and was therefore not capable of graphic representation.

The mark merely describes the characteristics of the goods (s.3(1)(b) TMA 1994)

If the mark simply consists of a description of the characteristics of the goods or services being sold then it will be refused registration.  There are three means through which a good can be refused registration on this ground:

  1. The mark is too descriptive: it simply consists of a name or a description of the quality or quantity of a good etc. An example of this would be the attempted registration of the mark “orange juice”
  2. The mark simply refers to geographical origin: marks such as this (i.e. “Richmond Bakers”) would be refused registration because the mark must be left available for other traders located there. In the aforementioned example other bakers in Richmond would be excluded from using the description of “Richmond Bakers” or possibly “Bakers in Richmond” if this exclusion did not apply. This is clearly not fair.
  3. The mark is simply a normal agglomeration of two words: for example, “headphones” would not be allowed as it is a normal agglomeration of two words. However, “headfones” may be allowed as it is a relatively unusual combination.

The mark has become customary in current language (s.3(1)(d) TMA 1994)

If the mark has become customary in current language then it will be refused registration. Words such as “laundrette” or “Muggle” (although the last word may already be a registered trade mark) would probably fall under this absolute ground for refusal.

It can be difficult to determine whether a word has become customary in a current language. A good (but possibly not absolute) means of checking is a quick Google search or a search in the dictionary.

The mark consists purely of the shape of goods or their packaging(s.3(2)(a) and (b) TMA 1994)

If the mark does not “immediately strike the eye as different and therefore memorable” then it will be refused registration under s.3(2)(a) TMA 1994. A basic example of a mark that would be refused on this ground would be the attempt to trade mark brown paper wrapping. However, it can often be difficult to draw the line as to where a shape or means of packaging is distinctive enough or not.

If the mark is the shape of a good which is simply necessary to achieve technical results (s.3(2)(b) TMA 1994)

If the mark of a good is simply the shape it is in and this shape is necessary to achieve a technical purpose then it will be refused. A good example of such a ground for refusal was the rejection of the attempted registration of a shaver head by Phillips. It was deemed that the mark (the shaver head) was simply a representation of the shape of the good, which was itself necessary to achieve a technical result.

Public interest grounds

A mark can be contrary to the public interest (and therefore will be refused registration) if:

  1. It is contrary to public policy or morality (s.3(3)(a) TMA 1994)
  2. It is likely to deceive the public (s.3(3)(b) TMA 1994) regarding the nature, quality or origin of the goods
  3. The application for the trade mark is made in bad faith (s.3(6) TMA 1994)

Trade mark “trolls” may be refused registration of their mark under s.3(6) TMA 1994 as it is regarded as bad faith to register a trade mark to simply stockpile it for future use.

Overcoming the absolute grounds of refusal

The applicant can overcome the absolute ground of refusal of lack of disctinctiveness if it can show evidence of use and that sufficient reputation (“goodwill”) is invested in the product.

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

Our awards

Request a callback

Your first name (required)

Your last name (required)

Your email (required)

Your telephone number (required)

Brief details of your enquiry

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

204 Reviews

Anonymous

Excellent advice and customer service.

Posted 1 month ago

Aneet G

I would definitely recommend Redmans. Very impressed with service provided. They were extremely proactive in handling my case which made things easier for me. Provided sound advice and resolution. Special credit for this goes to Chris who dealt with my case with great determination and consideration.

Posted 1 month ago

Fern M

Very efficient and friendly

Posted 1 month ago

Neville S

A professional and friendly service, which I would highly recommend.

Posted 1 month ago

Daniel T

Extremely helpful and made a bad situation much more manageable. Where other solicitors seemed disinterested in my situation Redmans immediately made me feel like it was a team effort to achieve a more favourable outcome

Posted 1 month ago

Paul T

Excellent, quick and informative. Chris was a real star and gave me confidence during the uncertainty if a redundancy settlement.

Posted 1 month ago

Marina E

Felt in very capable hands was listened to and given excellent advice. Would not hesitate to recomend and use again if needed.

Posted 1 month ago

Rosa B

Fabulous service all round.

Posted 1 month ago

Anonymous

Redmans were quick to respond to my enquiry and dealt with my case professionally and personably. I received sound advice and was put at ease by Chris Hadrill, Partner.

Posted 1 month ago

Alkhas K

Excellent service.

Posted 1 month ago

Mathias G

Contacted them regarding my end of employment agreement. Chris Hadrill dealt with it and was done and handed back to employer same day more than happy with there service.

Posted 2 months ago

Mark W

Most professional from start to finish offering very a personal service. Most impressive and quick when dealing with the matters in hand.

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Posted 3 months ago

submit

I am very glad I came across Redmans Solicitors. Fantastic service!

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Fantastic communication, always happy to answer queries, highly recommended.

Posted 3 months ago

Wavenie B

They were very straight to the point, friendly and understanding people. I felt they had my best interest. They were easy to get hold of, replies were almost instant. 5/5 for customer service

Posted 3 months ago

Christina P

Caroline was fantastic to work with - extremely knowledgeable, supportive, thorough and honest. I definitely recommend Redmans!

Posted 3 months ago

Anonymous

Very well done and fast support. Professional and reliable. Highly recommended!

Posted 3 months ago

Helene L

They were very knowledgable in the respected area in terms of change in law/regulations that is crucial for the clients who are seeking for legal arvice.

Posted 3 months ago

Sara R

Very helpful and wonderful advice

Posted 3 months ago

Marie D

very good service all digitalised

Posted 3 months ago