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 >> CUTTY SARK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o28501 (2 July 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o28501.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o28501 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o28501
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 56 - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ use and registrations of their mark CUTTY SARK, registered in Class 33 in respect of "spirits" and in Class 34 in respect of "smokers’ articles included in Class 34". Dealing with the matter under Section 56, the Hearing Officer ruled that the opponents did not qualify for the protection afforded by that section, since they did not fall within the definition set out in Section 55(1)(b). In doing so, the Hearing Officer rejected a submission that that definition was ambiguous and could be taken as a "form of inclusion in the negative".
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found that whilst the goods of the application and the goods of the opponents’ registration in class 33 (tobacco v spirits) were not similar, the same could not be said of the goods in the opponents’ registration in class 34; here there was similarity such as to give rise to a real and definite likelihood of confusion. The objection under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded accordingly.
This effectively decided the matter but the Hearing Officer went on to find that the opposition failed under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a).