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 >> QUINTUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o04004 (6 February 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o04004.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o04004, [2004] UKIntelP o4004

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


QUINTUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o04004 (6 February 2004)

For the whole decision click here: o04004

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/040/04
Decision date
6 February 2004
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
QUINTUS
Classes
33
Applicant
Indomita Wines SA
Opponent
Chatam International Inc
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a Community Trade Mark registration for the mark QUANTUM in Class 33 for the same and similar goods as those of the applicants' application. No evidence of use of either mark was filed. The opponents filed some research evidence to show that a search using the letter string QU*NTU* found the respective marks QUINTUS and QUANTUM.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer confirmed that identical and similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks. While the two marks have some elements in common the Hearing Officer decided that considered as wholes they were visually and phonetically different and not likely to be confused by consumers. Opposition thus failed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o04004.html