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!



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 >> BREWERS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o18201 (18 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o18201.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o18201

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


BREWERS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o18201 (18 April 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o18201

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/182/01
Decision date
18 April 2001
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
BREWERS
Classes
39
Applicant
C Brewer & Sons Ltd
Opponent
Major League Baseball Properties Inc
Opposition
Sections 3(1)(c), 3(3)(b), 3(4), 3(6), 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)

Result

Section 3 - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

Opposition based on opponent’s various registrations of the trade mark MILWAUKEE BREWERS (and device) in Classes 16, 18, 25, 28 and 41 (each with a disclaimer to exclusive use of a letter 'M' or of either of the words 'Milwaukee' and 'Brewers'.

Having dismissed, briefly, the opposition based on each of the cited grounds under Section 3 for want of any substantiating evidence, the Hearing Officer then proceeded to dismiss opposition under Section 5(2)(b).

In his view, even assuming the respective marks covered identical or similar goods under Class 16, there was no likelihood of confusion, given that the marks were quite distinct and that there was no evidence that the opponent had a reputation in any of the goods in question.

Moreover (following "Paco Life in Colour") the disclaimer covering the opponent’s marks was fatal to its case under Section 5(2)(b), even if the mark in suit was viewed as BREWERS solus. Opposition under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) was also dismissed, briefly, the Hearing Officer again finding that the opponent had no UK reputation in its marks as signs identifying the source of any relevant goods or services.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o18201.html