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 >> KKK KASHMIR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o37601 (24 August 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o37601.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o37601 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o37601
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of the mark CASMIR in relation to "perfumes" from about 1991 onwards. The use was modest and not particularly well documented. The applicants also claimed use but the opponents disputed its merits. One unusual feature of at least one of the exhibits showed that the applicants used their mark on packaging which, when viewed from the front, only K KASHMIR was visible.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and, comparing the respective marks, decided that there was little likelihood of confusion. In view of the applicants unusual style of use, the Hearing Officer went on to compare K KASHMIR with the opponents CASHMIR mark but again came to the conclusion that they were sufficiently different for confusion not to occur.
The ground under Section 3(6) - Bad Faith - was based on the fact that the present applicants had opposed the opponents CASMIR mark, claiming that KASHMIR and CASMIR were confusingly similar. Also the applicants had earlier applied to register K KASHMIR and KK KASHMIR and the opponents claimed that the applicants were attempting to get as close as possible to their mark CASMIR. The Hearing Officer noted the fact of disputes between the two parties but considered that the opponents had not provided convincing arguments to justify a finding of bad faith. This view also applied to the unusual way the applicants used their mark on packaging
