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 >> DIGITAL EDGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o37299 (21 October 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o37299.html Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o37299 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o37299
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponent's marks EDGE registered in Classes 9 and 16 and THE EDGE, registered in Classes 9 and 28; and on their claim of use of the marks DIGITAL EDGE and CUTTING EDGE.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found that the marks were similar and that there existed a likelihood of confusion in respect of the "joysticks" specified in the application. The opposition succeeded, therefore, in respect of that item, but failed in respect of the other goods specified.
Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer found that the opponents had not established their claim to a reputation in respect of dissimilar goods, and the opposition under that head failed accordingly.
The evidence relating to goodwill or reputation in the marks DIGITAL EDGE and CUTTING EDGE was not strong enough to allow a successful opposition under Section 5(4)(a).
The application was allowed to proceed subject to the deletion of "joysticks" from the specification.
In view of the range of the opponents' original pleadings and their failure to attend the hearing the Hearing Officer made no award of costs in respect of their partial success.
