That'll be 2,750 sovs please guv'nor

The basis of the opposition was that the mark was in capable of functioning as a trade mark, for example on grounds of descriptiveness, non-distinctiveness and being a customary term in the trade for such coins.

The decision is off piste because it refers, for the first time I can recall, to the Coinage Act 1971, on the basis of which RM argued that it had a statutory monopoly in the UK in coins called sovereigns. (Numismatic note: a UK sovereign is a commemorative gold coin with a face value of £1 but with a real value of £190 or more, depending on the quality finish.)

Before the opposition, the IPO had refused RM's application on grounds of descriptiveness and non-distinctiveness, but RM had overcome these objections by filing evidence of distinctiveness acquired through use.  Unfortunately for RM, sovereign coins originating from outside the UK were traded in the UK, so RM's application was contrary to the relevant section of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

The IPO therefore confirmed that the opposition should succeed, and went on to consider the issue of acquired distinctiveness.  It held that the relevant public did not perceive the coins in question as originating from RM solely on the basis of the word SOVEREIGN, ie other elements such as BRITISH, GB or ROYAL MINT would be necessary for the public to distinguish RM's coins from those emanating from elsewhere.

The IPO awarded costs of £2750 to CMB, presumably not payable in sovereigns.

A link to this post can be found on the Further Information menu on this page.