Interestingly the draftsman of the trade mark specification included formula one racing in the specification of goods and services, using it generically, which contrasted strongly with the later claim that the term was not generic, but distinctive of an undertaking, although the Appointed Person noted that nothing turned on this fact.

The Appointed Person considered that had the evidence of use been sufficient to overcome s3(1)(b) and (c) then it would also have overcome s3(1)(d) and therefore not to concede this ground was not relevant.  However on the evidence before him he did not consider the s3(1) proviso to come into play.

F1 was presented in the FOL evidence in a stylised logo, and reference was made to this by the opponent, noting that they were not opposing registration of a logo, merely the distionctiveness of the word mark.  Peculiarly, no survey evidence was presented by FOL and the Appointed Person noted that although the FIA (Formula One governing body) allows FOL to organise Formula One races, but this means a monopoly not public perception as a trade mark. 

An interesting concept, in that trade marks are by definition monopolies yet shape trade marks are refused (see Lego) as potentially allowing anti-competitive monopolies.  Far better surely to focus on the unexhibited, relationship with the FIA.

The Appointed Person considered Bach Flower Remedies and Shredded Wheat, and decided that the evidence did not make out that the use of F1 as a word mark was distinctive of an undertaking. 

Trademarkroom