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 >> BENETTON FORMULA 1 RACING TEAM (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o30502 (30 July 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o30502.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o30502

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


BENETTON FORMULA 1 RACING TEAM (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o30502 (30 July 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o30502

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/305/02
Decision date
30 July 2002
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
BENETTON FORMULA 1 RACING TEAM
Classes
03, 08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27
Registered Proprietor
Bennetton Group SpA
Applicants for Declaration of Invalidity
Carsten Sports Limited
Application for Invalidation
Section 47(2)(a) (Section 5(2)(b)).

Result

Application for invalidation, Section 47(2)(a) (Section 5(2)(b), failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents’ registration (in Class 28) and use of the mark FORMULA 1; they opposed registration in respect of some of the proprietor’s specified goods.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer first addressed the matter of the distinctiveness of the applicants’ mark. In this he decided that the applicants’ mark had an average (but not enhanced) degree of distinctive character.

Addressing the matter of the similarity of the marks, he decided, overall, they were different in character.

On the question of the similarity of the disputed goods, he decided there was similarity, but in view of his findings in respect of the marks he decided there was no likelihood of confusion. The application for invalidation failed accordingly.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o30502.html