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 >> SPECTACULAR BY SPECTACULAR COSMETICS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o42201 (26 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o42201.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o42201 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o42201
Result
Section 3(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark HR(elided), HELENA RUBINSTEIN SPECTACULAR and use of that mark. They also claimed that the word SPECTACULAR was not registrable.
Under Section 3 the Hearing Officer accepted that as the word SPECTACULAR is a well known dictionary word with a laudatory meaning it had little distinctiveness as an unused mark. However, the mark applied for was a combination of elements and the Hearing Officer concluded that it had a capacity to distinguish. Opposition thus failed on the Section 3 ground.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the opponents objections related only to the applicants application in Class 3, where identical and similar goods are at issue. In comparing the respective mark the Hearing Officer noted that the only common feature is the word SPECTACULAR and that it is a weakly distinctive element. In contrast he noted the strength of the opponents HR and HELENA RUBINSTEIN elements and concluded that there was little likelihood of confusion.
With regard to Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer accepted that there had been extensive use of the opponents mark but the nature of that use did not convince him that the word SPECTACULAR would be seen other than as descriptive and/or laudatory rather than as an indication of origin. The Section 5(4)(a) case thus failed.
