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 >> TOUCHWOOD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o33806 (30 November 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o33806.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o33806

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


TOUCHWOOD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o33806 (30 November 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o33806

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/338/06
Decision date
30 November 2006
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
TOUCHWOOD
Classes
35, 36
Applicant
Lend Lease Europe Limited
Opponent
W H Mason & Son (Timber Merchants) Limited
Opposition
Sections 3(6) & 5(2)(a) & (b)

Result

Section 3(6): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(a): Opposition successful. Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applicant applied for a range of services including advertising and property development in Class 35 and also, essentially, retailing services. The opponent who owned the mark TOUCH WOOD in respect of goods in Class 20 objected to the inclusion of retailing services in the applicant’s specification as it claimed that the respective marks were identical or similar and that retailing services and its Class 20 goods were similar. The opponent also claimed that it had investigated the applicant’s activities which it said were essentially property development and submitted that this cast doubt on its claim to provide or intention to provide retail services. Thus the terms of Section 3(6) applied.

Under Section 5(2)(a) the Hearing Officer determined that the respective marks were identical and went on to find that the goods of the opponent and the retailing services of the applicant were similar. The opponent was thus successful under Section 5(2)(a). In the event that the respective marks were considered similar under Section 5(2)(b) then the result would also favour the opponent.

As regards the objection under Section 3(6) the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponent had failed to substantiate its claim and it therefore failed on this ground.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o33806.html