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 >> HEALTH MATTERS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o07602 (15 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o07602.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o07602, [2002] UKIntelP o7602 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o07602
Result
Section 3(1)(a), (b) & (c) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on a claim that the mark applied for was not distinctive since it consists predominately of the descriptive words HEALTH MATTERS. In the alternative they considered that the mark applied for was confusingly similar to their registered mark SANOFI-SYNTHELABO. Because health matters, in respect of Class 5 goods.
Under Section 3 the Hearing Officer noted that it was accepted by the applicants that the words HEALTH MATTERS are descriptive but that the mark also contained a prominent device element consisting of a coloured circle set within a geometric device, the whole being situated between the words HEALTH and MATTERS. Taken as a whole and in the light of the BABY-DRY decision by the European Court of Justice, the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark was not without distinctive character and that the opposition on this ground failed.
Under Section 5(2)(b) it was common ground that identical goods were at issue so the only matter to be decided was whether or not the respective marks were confusingly similar. As the only matter appearing in both marks was the descriptive words HEALTH MATTERS the Hearing Officer was of the view that the purchasing public would not consider such words as an indication of origin. In view of the other distinctive matter in the respective marks - the device in the applicants mark and the words SANOFI-SYNTHELABO in the opponents mark - the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were very different and that there was no likelihood of confusion of the public. The Opponents thus also failed on this ground of their opposition.
