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 >> HYMAC (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o09008 (27 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o09008.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o09008, [2008] UKIntelP o9008 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o09008
Result
Section 5(3): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent owns a Community registration for the mark HYDAC in a range of Classes but only relies upon goods in Classes 7 & 12. It also owns two UK registrations for the mark HYDAC in Class 7 and one in Class 12.
The opponent filed evidence of use of its mark in the UK in respect of a range of goods, some of which are proper to classes other than Classes 7 and 12. The evidence relating to other goods was lacking in detail and was not well focused. While some turnover figures were provided specific goods were not identified; little information was provided as regards promotion and advertising and no information was provided from trade sources or details of market share. Overall the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponent had an appropriate reputation in its mark to support its ground of opposition under Section 5(3).
The applicant also filed evidence but this evidence was not in proper format and therefore could not be considered by the Hearing Officer. In view of the Hearing Officer’s view of the opponent’s evidence he merely noted the applicant’s evidence and let it lie on file.
As the opponent failed to substantiate its claim to a significant reputation in its mark at the relevant date it failed in its ground of opposition under Section 5(3). Costs awarded to the applicant.
