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 >> OKA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o04306 (6 February 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o04306.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o4306, [2006] UKIntelP o04306 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o04306
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Appeal dismissed. Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
This was an appeal of the Hearing Officers decision dated 7 April 2005 (BL O/092/05).
Three preliminary matters arose for settlement:
1. The applicant requested a division of its application to exclude Class 2, the subject of those proceedings. Both the Appointed Person and the Registrar agreed to this request.
2. The applicant advised of other proceedings before the Registrar and requested that the Appointed Person’s decision should be provisional only. No formal stay of proceedings was requested but the Appointed Person delayed issue of her decision in the hope of a settlement between the parties. As no such notification was forthcoming the Appointed Person issued her decision.
The grounds of appeal were as follows:
A. The Hearing Officer ignored or gave insufficient weight to the device element appearing in the opponent’s mark when comparing the respective marks; and
B. The Hearing Officer failed to pay due regard to the evidence relating to how the opponent used its mark.
As regards the first ground the Appointed Person reviewed the Hearing Officer’s decision and concluded that he had given full consideration to the device element in the opponent’s mark. Appeal dismissed on this ground.
As regards the second ground the Appointed Person noted that the Hearing Officer had considered the evidence of use of the opponent’s mark in detail. He had also taken account of how customers were likely to view its mark and the Appointed Person concluded that this was the proper approach. Appeal dismissed on this ground
