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 >> SWIPE GOLD (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2004] UKIntelP o29404 (29 September 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o29404.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o29404 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o29404
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful in respect of Class 1. Failed in respect of Class 5.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of registrations of the mark SWIPE in Classes 1 and 3 in respect of chemical preparations for application to glass and transparent surfaces to prevent misting and soaps and liquid cleaning preparations.
The applicant’s goods in Class 1 were "Chemicals used in agriculture, horticulture and forestry and manures" and in Class 5 "Preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides and herbicides". The applicant also owned a co-existing registration in Class 3 for the mark SWIPE in respect of "Herbicides" but no use of this mark was filed so this was merely "state of the Register" information.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer had little difficulty in deciding that the respective marks were closely similar since the word GOLD in this context was likely to be seen as laudatory or referring to goods of premium quality. Both parties made submissions about the closeness of the respective goods and the Hearing Officer went on to apply the usual tests to decide on similarity.
In relation to the Class 1 application the Hearing Officer decided that there was similarity of goods in respect of the applicant's agriculture and horticulture goods but not in relation to chemical for use in forestry or manures. As regards the Class 5 application the Hearing Officer concluded that these goods were not similar to the opponent’s goods in Class 3. As a result of the Hearing Officer’s conclusions the applicant was given a period of twenty eight days to restrict his specification to reflect the Hearing Officer’s findings. Opposition thus partially successful.
