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 >> FRESH ENERGY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o50201 (9 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o50201.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o50201 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o50201
Result
Sections 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 filed evidence, particularly from Internet sites, to show that the words FRESH and ENERGY are used extensively as descriptive words but they failed to show that the combination or indeed the word ENERGY, are in use in relation to toothpastes and mouthwashes, the goods of the applicant. It was accepted by all parties that the word FRESH is meaningful in relation to such goods. The Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents had failed to substantiate their claims in relation to the Section 3 ground.
Under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(4)(a) the opponents relied on their registered and well known mark AQUAFRESH. The Hearing Officer decided without difficulty that the respective marks were not confusingly similar even in respect of identical goods. The opponents also failed on these grounds.
