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!



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 >> DISCOVERY TIME (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o23502 (10 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o23502.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o23502

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


DISCOVERY TIME (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o23502 (10 June 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o23502

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/235/02
Decision date
10 June 2002
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
DISCOVERY TIME
Classes
28
Applicants
Flair Leisure Products Plc
Opponents
Discovery Communications Inc
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents were producers of DISCOVERY CHANNEL, a satellite TV Channel and their opposition was based on registrations and use of a number of DISCOVERY marks. Dealing with the matter first under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer noted that in respect of two of the opponents’ applications identical goods were involved. He therefore went on to compare the marks (DISCOVERY CHANNEL v DISCOVERY TIME). He found no enhanced degree of distinctive character in the opponents’ marks in respect of Class 28 goods, and therefore focussed on the inherent characteristics of the marks concerned. Having compared these and taking all the factors into consideration the Hearing Officer was not persuaded that there was a likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

Under Section 5(3), the opposition failed also, in the light of the Hearing Officer’s finding in relation to the marks themselves. This aspect effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a), also.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o23502.html