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 >> MEI HUA device containing Chinese characters (series of 2 marks) (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2004] UKIntelP o29304 (26 September 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o29304.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o29304 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o29304
Result
Application for invalidation, Section 47(2), citing Section 5(2)(b) successful. No formal findings under Section 5(3) or 5(4)(a).
Points Of Interest
Summary
The Hearing Officer considered the matter first under Section 5(2)(b). Initially he focused on the question of who might constitute the average consumer of the goods "currently of prime interest to the parties" (prawn crackers) and he concluded that it would be wrong to take too narrow a view of that question since "ethnic food products" might initially be introduced through restaurants but might later be made more widely available. In short he considered that "due allowance must be made for both Chinese and non-Chinese speakers".
It was clear that some identical goods were involved. The applicants' mark consisted of a "blossom device" containing Chinese characters and accompanied by the words HUNG MEI.
After a careful analysis of all the relevant factors and taking account of the facts that the goods were not confined to Chinese foodstuffs, nor directed solely at Chinese speakers, the Hearing Officer found a likelihood of confusion and the application citing Section 5(2)(b) succeeded accordingly.
In view of this success he did not go on to give detailed consideration to the matter under Sections 5(3) or 5(4)(a).
