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 >> BREATHE EASY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o09204 (31 March 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o09204.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o9204, [2004] UKIntelP o09204 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o09204
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent's opposition was based on their ownership of two registrations in Class 5 for the mark EASI-BREATHE in respect of the same and similar goods as those in the applicants application. The opponent also claimed extensive use of their mark but their evidence was not well focused since it also included use on inhalers (Class 10 goods). The opponent did not provide separate figures for their Class 5 goods though it was clear from the evidence presented that such goods were included in the inhalers when sold.
The applicant also claimed some use of their mark but such use was in close association with their well known LEMSIP mark.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks BREATH EASY and EASI-BREATHE and had little difficulty in deciding that they were confusingly similar. Opposition thus succeeded on this ground.
Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer was not convinced that the opponent had established that they had a significant reputation in their mark at the relevant date and he dismissed this ground of opposition.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had some reputation and goodwill at the relevant date. In view of the fact that identical goods are at issue and the respective marks are very similar the Hearing Officer decided that the opponent succeeded on this ground.
