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 >> GARDENIER (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o24102 (13 June 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o24102.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o24102

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


GARDENIER (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o24102 (13 June 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o24102

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/241/02
Decision date
13 June 2002
Hearing officer
Mr S P Rowan
Mark
GARDENIER
Classes
08, 18, 20
Registered Proprietor
NRS Foods Marketing Ltd
Applicants for Declaration of Invalidity
Gardena Kress + Kastner GmbH
Application for Invalidation
Sections 47(1) (3(6)); 47(2)(a) (5(2)(b)); 47(2)(b) & (5(4)(a))

Result

Section 47(1) (Section 3(6)) - Application for invalidation dismissed

Section 47(2)(a) (Section 5(2)(b)) - Application for invalidation partially successful

Section 47(2)(b) (Section 5(4)(a)) - Application for invalidation dismissed

Points Of Interest

Summary

The application for a declaration of invalidity was based on the applicants’ prior registrations of GARDENA, in Classes 8 and 20 (and six other classes). The Hearing Officer dealt with the matter first under Section 5(2)(b). He found, first, that the applicants’ mark had a low degree of distinctive character which had not been improved through use.

Comparing the marks, the Hearing Officer found some visual and conceptual similarity between the marks and a "high degree of aural similarity". Comparing the goods the Hearing Officer found some goods in Classes 8 and 20 to be identical or similar, but none in Class 18. In the light of those findings the Hearing Officer found the applicants successful in respect of Classes 8 and 20 (in part); the application in respect of Class 18 was dismissed.

The evidence did not support the applicants’ claim to goodwill or reputation and the Section 5(4)(a) case fell accordingly.

There was no evidence to support the allegation under Section 3(6).



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o24102.html