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 >> SEA WORLD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o37002 (10 September 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o37002.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o37002 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o37002
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of registrations of the mark SEA WORLD and device of a dolphin in Classes 16 and 41 and of the mark SEA WORLD in Classes 16, 28 and 41. They also claimed that their marks were well known in the UK, having been used in America since 1970. They also cast doubt on the applicants claimed use of their mark in the UK since the mark is used with the descriptive term "Gold Coast Australia" or is in the form SEA WORLD NARA.
The applicants claimed their mark has been in use in Australia since 1971 and was first used in the UK in 1993. A number of companies sell package holidays to Australia including entry to the SEA WORLD theme parks.
Under Section 3(6) the opponents claimed that the applicants had known of their mark and had deliberately chosen a very similar mark. Thus their application was in bad faith. However, no evidence was filed by the opponents to substantiate this claim so the Hearing Officer dismissed this ground.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks, while not identical, were very similar. He went on to compare the applicants claimed services in Class 39 with the opponents registered services in Class 41 and concluded that, as the both related to marine park amusement services, they were similar. As the respective marks and services were similar the Hearing Officer concluded there was a likelihood of confusion of the public. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
