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 >> STORM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o00508 (10 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o00508.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o00508, [2008] UKIntelP o508

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


STORM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o00508 (10 January 2008)

For the whole decision click here: o00508

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/005/08
Decision date
10 January 2008
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
STORM
Classes
45
Applicants
Storm Model Management Limited
Opponents
Sun 99 Limited
Opposition
Sections 5(1), 5(2)(a) & 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(a): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The application was sought in respect of “provision of information relating to fashion”. The opposition was based on the mark “STORM”, registered in Class 42 in respect of design services relating to a range of items including such things as clothing and eyewear. The marks being identical the Hearing Officer determined that the matter fell to be decided under Section 5(2)(a) and he therefore turned to a comparison of the respective services. Evidence provided under the Proof of Use regulations decided him. that he should confine his comparison to the designing of clothing and eyewear offered by the opponents, with the fashion information services specified by the applicants. In these he found a “low degree of similarity only”. He noted the lack of detailed information on how the respective trades operated and eventually concluded that there was “insufficient basis for (him) to conclude that there (was) a likelihood of confusion”. The opposition therefore failed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o00508.html