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 >> EUROPHON (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o24502 (18 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o24502.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o24502

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


EUROPHON (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o24502 (18 June 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o24502

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/245/02
Decision date
18 June 2002
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
EUROPHON
Classes
06, 19
Applicants
Richter-System GmbH & CO KG
Opponents
Ecophon AS
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 opposition was based on the opponents registrations and use of their mark ECOPHON, in Classes 6, 17 and 19. Dealing with the matter, first, under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer concentrated on the opposition in respect of Classes 6 and 19, since the opponents could be in no better position in respect of Class 17. Comparing the specifications and the marks, however, the Hearing Officer could not conclude that there was a likelihood of confusion and the objection under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer considered that his findings in respect of the similarity of the marks, together with the fact that the opponents had not established in evidence their claim to a requisite degree of reputation, that ground failed also.

Under Section 5(4)(a), the Hearing Officer having noted the lack of evidence of reputation found the opponents could be in no better position with respect to the requisite goodwill. That ground failed as well.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o24502.html