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 >> OMEGA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o30504 (7 October 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o30504.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o30504

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


OMEGA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o30504 (7 October 2004)

For the whole decision click here: o30504

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/305/04
Decision date
7 October 2004
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
OMEGA
Classes
14
Applicant
Omega SA
Opponent
Omega Engineering Inc
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)* (*Sections 5(1) & 5(2)(a) were cited in the statement of grounds but were withdrawn at the hearing)

Result

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

Section 5(4)(a): - No formal finding.

Points Of Interest

Summary

This was one of three closely related actions, involving the same parties and heard at the same time; the others are set out in BL O/306/04 and BL O/307/04.

The opponent cited one pending UK application and two pending Community Trade Mark applications. It was agreed however that the opponent’s strongest case rested on CTM application 2180834 consisting of the word OMEGA in which the letter E appeared as the device signifying the ‘euro’ currency. The opposition was directed at some of the goods in the applicant’s Class 14 specifications. The Hearing Officer agreed that these items were identical or similar.

Comparing the marks, the Hearing Officer concluded that the visual, aural and conceptual similarities outweighed the differences. In the result he found a likelihood of confusion; the opposition succeeded in respect of the goods objected to, provisional upon the opponent’s CTM application eventually proceeding to registration.

The Hearing Officer did not go on to consider the matter under Section 5(4)(a).



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o30504.html