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 >> BIG BITES SANDWICHES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o34603 (12 November 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o34603.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o34603

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


BIG BITES SANDWICHES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o34603 (12 November 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o34603

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/346/03
Decision date
12 November 2003
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
BIG BITES SANDWICHES
Classes
12, 25
Applicant
Renown Leisure Limited
Opponent
7-Eleven Incorporated
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponent’s opposition was based on their ownership of registrations of the mark BIG BITES in Classes 29 and 30 in respect of a range of food products. No evidence of use of the opponent’s mark was filed in the proceedings but they did file evidence to show that a number of restaurants also sold promotional items of clothing at their premises.

The applicant’s predecessor stated that from 1987 he and his wife had sold sandwiches in the Basingstoke area under the name BIG BITES SANDWICHES. In 1995 they moved to Devon and set up a business under the name Mid Devon Caterers and the name BIG BITES SANDWICHES was also used. This business was sold to the present applicant in 2001. In his evidence the applicant’s predecessor suggested that the mark BIG BITES was not distinctive and the present logo had been adopted in 2001 to give the mark a more distinctive character.

In considering the applicant’s evidence the Hearing Officer concluded that the use of the mark BIG BITES SANDWICHES had been subsidiary to the MID DEVON CATERERS mark and there was little to indicate that it had a separate and distinct reputation. Also while BIG BITES might not be overly distinctive the Hearing Officer noted that this mark had been accepted for registration on a prima facie basis and he decided that this mark, while having some descriptive connotations, also had a limited amount of distinctive character.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer had little difficulty in deciding that the respective marks BIG BITES SANDWICHES and device and BIG BITES were very similar. However, the opponent’s foodstuffs were not similar to the applicant’s clothing application and that opposition against that application failed.

As regards the Class 42 application – the provision of food and drink – the Hearing Officer compared the respective goods and services in some detail before finally coming to the conclusion that the foodstuffs in Classes 29 and 30 were only marginally similar to the applicant’s services. Overall he considered that there was little likelihood of confusion bearing in mind, the descriptive nature of the opponent’s mark and opposition thus failed against the Class 42 application.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o34603.html