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 >> BARCA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o13702 (28 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o13702.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o13702 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o13702
Result
Section 3(3)(b): - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed
Section 56(1): - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents were proprietors of the mark BARCA, a CTM registration in Class 41. Under Section 3(3)(b) the Hearing Officer ruled that that Section was intended to deal with absolute, not relative matters and in any case he could not accept, even if the public saw a connection with Barcelona, or Spain, they would be deceived into believing that the services originated there.
That ground was consequently dismissed.
Under Section 5(2)(b) he could not accept that the services were similar. Despite the similarity in the marks he found no likelihood of confusion. Under Section 56 he could not see that the opponents were in any better position than they were under Section 5(2)(b). That ground too was dismissed.
Under Section 5(3) he considered that whilst the marks were the same and the services different, there was no reason to believe that the applicants could derive any advantage, or that their use could be detrimental to the opponents’ mark.
Finally, under Section 5(4)(a) he could see no evidence of any trade in goods or services and he could not find that the opponents would suffer damage by the applicants’ user of their mark.
