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 £1, 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 >> OKO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o28201 (28 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o28201.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o28201 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o28201
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents applied on 31 July 1998 to register the mark OKO and device in a number of classes, including Class 1 where the conflict exists, by way of an extension under the Madrid protocol. They claim use in the UK since 1997 in relation to particular goods and services but this use does not impact on the opposition. The applicants own a registration in Class 1 for the mark OKO and device in respect of the same goods as applied for here.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks are very similar and similar goods are at issue. There is therefore a likelihood of confusion and the opposition on this ground was successful. In passing he noted that the opponents mark is under opposition by the applicants in respect of their earlier registered mark. However, this opposition had to be decided on its own merits.
As the Hearing Officer found the opponents had no reputation in the UK, he concluded that they could not succeed under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off. Also under Section 3(6) he accepted that there was a dispute between the parties but this did not justify a finding of bad faith in relation to the filing of this application by the applicants.
