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 >> McQUEEN CLOTHING CO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o38702 (26 September 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o38702.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o38702 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o38702
Result
Section 3(6) - No formal finding
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful (provisionally)
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition successful
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent’s case was that he was engaged in the design, production and marketing of clothing and fashion accessories and was the proprietor of Community Trade Mark applications for the marks ‘ALEXANDER McQUEEN’ and ‘McQUEEN’ (stylised).
The Hearing Officer found that the surname McQUEEN was relatively uncommon and the totality was inherently distinctive.
He also considered that within the marketplace for haute couture the mark ALEXANDER McQUEEN was entitled to claim an enhanced degree of distinctive character. The goods were the same and there was a strong degree of similarity between the respective marks; there was a clear likelihood of confusion. The evidence of honest concurrent use was not good enough to displace this finding and the opposition under Section 5(2) therefore succeeded, subject to the Community Trade Mark applications’ eventually achieving registration.
The applicant’s specification would not prevent him expanding into, or into close approximation to, the area occupied by the opponent with consequent damage to the latter business. The Hearing Officer therefore found for the opponent under Section 5(4)(a) also.
The Hearing Officer went on to comment that the applicant’s claim to have used the mark from a date prior to the opponent’s use meant that the Section 3(6) objection had little prospect of success, but he made no formal finding under that head.
