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 >> DISGREN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o06703 (13 March 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o06703.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o06703, [2003] UKIntelP o6703 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o06703
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.
Section 5(4)(a): - No formal finding.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on three marks belonging to the opponents, viz:- DISPRIN, DISPRIN CV and DISPROL, all registered in Class 5. The opponents also claimed that these constituted a family of marks. The Hearing Officer dealt with this latter aspect first.
In his assessment only the marks DISPRIN and DISPROL could make any claim to be a family, since DISPRIN CV was just another DISPRIN mark. Since by a ‘rule of thumb’ a minimum of three marks was needed to form a family, the opponents’ claim was not made out. Moreover, the common element being DISPR there was no repetition of that common element in the applicants’ mark.
The Hearing Officer then turned to a consideration of the matter under Section 5(2)(b), in which he confined his assessment to that involving the clash between the marks DISPRIN and DISGREN. The goods, he decided, were identical. He went on to compare the marks; in the result he found these to be similar. Having taken account of the identicality of the goods, the degree of similarity in the marks, the distinctiveness of the earlier mark (DISPRIN) and the nature of the purchasing decision, the Hearing Officer concluded that there existed a likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded accordingly.
The Hearing Officer made no finding under Section 5(4)(a).
