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 >> INJOY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o09605 (11 April 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o09605.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o9605, [2005] UKIntelP o09605 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o09605
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition successful in respect of Class 3.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents in these proceedings relied upon eight earlier registrations. Four for the mark JOY in Class 3 and four for the mark COLLECTION JOY JEAN PATOU in Classes 9, 18, 24 and 25. The opponents also filed details of use of the mark JOY in relation to perfume and perfumery products but the details provided were vague and poorly focused and there was no evidence that use extended outside the field of perfumes.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective goods. As regards the Class 3 goods - perfumes, cosmetics etc - he concluded that identical and similar goods were involved. Class 3 goods were not, however, similar to clothing in Class 25 or hygiene and beauty care services in Class 42. In comparing the respective marks JOY and INJOY in relation to the Class3 goods the Hearing Officer thought it likely that INJOY would be regarded as a mis-spelling or phonetic variant of the word ENJOY. Thus in addition to visual and phonetic similarity, there was conceptual similarity in that the meanings for JOY and ENJOY are very similar. Overall there was a likelihood of confusion and opposition succeeded in respect of the Class 3 application.
As regards the mark COLLECTION JOY JEAN PATOU, this mark was much less similar to the mark in suit and while identical and similar goods were at issue in respect of Class 25 goods in the application in suit, the Hearing Officer decided that the differences in the respective marks meant that there was unlikely to be any confusion as to origin. Opposition thus failed in respect of these prior registrations.
