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!
 |
[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 >> SHARP OWL THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SOLUTION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o21903 (31 July 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o21903.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o21903 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o21903
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Section 56 - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents were proprietors of various registrations of the mark SHARP, in Class 9.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the goods and concluded that there was a "low to negligible degree of similarity between them". He went on to compare the marks.
In the absence of any evidence of consumer reactions to the marks and relying on his own reactions, the Hearing Officer found that the most immediate and natural interpretation was that the first element in the applicants' mark SHARP OWL was that it was used to qualify the second element OWL; SHARP on its own lent itself to a 'surnominal usage'. He eventually concluded that the opponents had not established a likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.
The Hearing Officer was doubtful that the opponents could succeed under any of the remaining grounds, given the differences in the marks and the goods, but the position would have to remain untested since the evidence before him did not establish the nature or extent of the reputation claimed.
