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 >> OCS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o37801 (28 August 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o37801.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o37801

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


OCS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o37801 (28 August 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o37801

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/378/01
Decision date
28 August 2001
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
OCS
Classes
06, 40
Applicant
Organically Coated Steels Limited
Opponent
OCS Group Limited
Opposition
Sections 5(2), 5(3) & 5(4)

Result

Section 5(2): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of the mark OCS in relation to a range of activities surrounding their core activity of office cleaning services. Subsidiary companies traded under their own names, but showed in their literature that they were linked with OCS, offered building maintenance and refurbishment services and a range of services including maintenance of metal work. The applicants claimed use of their mark OCS from 1990 in relation to the provision of coated steel products, the treatment of materials and the cutting of coated steels.

Under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer noted that the marks were identical but based on the opponents registered rights he decided that the respective goods and services were some way apart and thus confusion was unlikely.

Under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had rather wider rights based on their use but in most instances the use was by subsidiary companies, who traded under their own names, and the link with the opponents OCS mark was not readily apparent. Opposition based on these grounds failed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o37801.html