BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> KOP'S FOOTWEAR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o28598 (27 April 1998) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o28598.html Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o28598 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o28598
Result
Section5(2)(b) - Opposition succeeded.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of the marks OP (stylised) and OP PRO as registered in Class 25 in respect of identical goods as those included within the applicant’s specification. They also filed use of their mark for some years prior to the relevant date but documentary evidence in support of such use was somewhat incomplete. It is also of note that the applicants have opposed one of the opponents marks on the basis that there was a similarity between the respective marks.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks KOP’S (stylised) and OP PRO and OP (stylised). The applicant’s mark consists of a letter K with a break between the arms and a continuation outline to form an oval which contains the prominent letters OP’S and the word footwear in letter form. It could thus be said that the mark consists of a letter K with the letters OP’S within an oval device and this was how the Hearing Officer viewed it when comparing it to the opponents OP mark. Viewed in this way there is no doubt that the respective marks are confusingly similar and the Hearing Officer so found. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer concluded that the evidence of use provided by the opponents was not sufficiently detailed or complete to mount a realistic challenge on this ground.
