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 >> STERISHIELD (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2007] UKIntelP o00607 (5 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o00607.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o607, [2007] UKIntelP o00607

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

STERISHIELD (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2007] UKIntelP o00607 (5 January 2007)

For the whole decision click here: o00607

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/006/07
Decision date
5 January 2007
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
STERISHIELD
Classes
02
Applicant for Invalidation
Liquid Plastics Limited
Registered Proprietor
Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd
Invalidation
Section 47(1) & (2) based on Sections 3(1)(a) (b) & (c), 5(2)(b) & 5(3)

Result

Section 47 based on Sections 3: Invalidation application failed. Section 47 based on Section 5(2)(b): Invalidation application failed. Section 47 based on Section 5(3): Invalidation application failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The mark replied upon by the applicant for invalidation had been on the Register for a number of years so the registered proprietor requested that it proved use of its mark in the five years period prior to the application. Such proof was provided but only in relation to “Coatings in the nature of paints”.

As regards the ground under Section 3 the Hearing Officer accepted that the mark in suit had some descriptive characteristics but STERI is not a recognised abbreviation and SHIELD is not the normal descriptive term used in relation to coatings and paints. In combination the mark was not without distinctive character and was properly registered.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and/or closely similar goods were at issue. As regards the respective marks STERI is a somewhat descriptive term for the goods at issue while SHIELD and SHEEN are well known words with their own meanings. Overall the Hearing Officer considered that the respective marks were not confusingly similar and that the application failed on this ground.

As the marks were not similar the application also failed on the Section 5(3) ground.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o00607.html