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!



BAILII [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 >> OCEANWAVE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o14702 (5 April 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o14702.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o14702

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


OCEANWAVE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o14702 (5 April 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o14702

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/147/02
Decision date
5 April 2002
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
OCEANWAVE
Classes
29
Applicant
Scandia Foods (UK) Limited t/a Oceancrest Foods
Opponent
Golden Feast Frozen Foods Limited
Opposition
Sections 3(6) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6) - Opposition successful.

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applicant’s specification was in respect of "sea foods, fresh, frozen and processed". The opponent claimed long-standing use of the mark OCEAN WAVE on frozen fish fingers and frozen fish cakes. Having examined the matter under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer found the opponent had a goodwill in the sale of fish fingers and fish cakes under the mark OCEAN WAVE. The goods were similar and there would clearly be confusion and deception amongst a substantial number of persons; damage would result. The opposition under Section 5(4)(a) succeeded accordingly.

For the sake of completeness the Hearing Officer went on to consider the case under Section 3(6), in which the opponent alleged that the applicant had no bona fide intention of using the mark in relation to the goods specified; the application had been made purely to prevent others registering the mark. In support of this allegation the opponent had put forward evidence of a specific nature which the applicant had not denied. The opposition under Section 3(6) succeeded also.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o14702.html