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 >> EASY POWER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o42802 (18 October 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o42802.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o42802 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o42802
Result
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition partially successful
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of the mark EAZYPOWER and they filed details of use in respect of specific sales to Attenborough tools during the period 1995 to 1998 of $39,644 and to Ashton Trading during the period 1997 to 1998 of $2,400. The supply of goods under the mark to two other UK firms from 1987 onwards was claimed but no turnover figures provided. All the sales appeared to be in respect of the following goods; "Screwdrivers, screwdriver tips, drill bits, heat guns and soldering irons".
The Hearing Officer noted that sales were modest but accepted that the opponents had established sufficient goodwill to buttress their ground under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - but only in respect of the goods listed above. In relation to the applicants' specification the Hearing Officer decided that there was a cross-over and similarity in relation to some of the goods listed, such as (1) Machines for treating floors and walls, (2) sanders and washers and (5) hand drills and hand saws for working wood and metals.
The Hearing Officer thus concluded that the opponents were successful in their opposition in respect of such goods. However, the applicants' application would be allowed to proceed if the conflicting goods were removed from their specification.
