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 >> POWDERHALE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o22302 (27 May 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o22302.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o22302 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o22302
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents based their objections on a number of their own ‘POWDER-’ marks (eg POWDERJECT, POWDERCAINE, POWDERVAX etc) which they also claimed constituted a ‘family’ of marks.
Dealing with the matter first under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer concluded from the evidence that the opponents reputation was limited to research and development in a highly specialised area, but he would take that into account in his considerations. Same and similar goods were involved, he decided. The ‘family’ of marks aspect could not be considered under Section 5(2)(b), where a mark by mark examination is required, although if a particular element in a mark had acquired enhanced distinctiveness, that could be taken into account. However, that had not been established in these proceedings. Comparing the marks, one by one, the Hearing Officer whilst noting the existence of the common element POWDER, in all the marks at issue, concluded that the average customer was not likely to confuse the applicants’ mark with the opponents’ earlier registrations. This disposed of the Section 5(2)(b) objection and effectively decided the matter under Section 5(3) also.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer concluded from his findings under Section 5(2)(b) that misrepresentation would not occur, and that ground failed accordingly.
