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 >> PAINTMASTER device (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o04807 (14 February 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o04807.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o4807, [2007] UKIntelP o04807

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


PAINTMASTER device (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o04807 (14 February 2007)

For the whole decision click here: o04807

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/048/07
Decision date
14 February 2007
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
PAINTMASTER & device
Classes
02
Applicant
Paintmaster (2000) Ltd
Opponent
Wickes Limited
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful. Specification restricted.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applied for mark covered a range of goods in Class 2 and the opponent only objected to paints and closely associated goods on the grounds that it owns the MASTER mark registered in respect of paints in Class 2. The opponent also filed details of extensive use and promotion of its mark and the Hearing Officer accepted that it had an enhanced level of distinctiveness through the use made of it.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and that some other goods had different levels of similarity. In comparing the respective marks PAINTMASTER and device and MASTER the Hearing Officer decided that PAINTMASTER was the distinctive and prominent element in the applicant’s mark and this element was compared with the opponent’s MASTER mark. Overall and taking account of the opponent’s user, the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks, as totalities, were sufficiently close for consumers to associate them or assume that the respective goods came from linked undertakings, when this was not the case. The Hearing Officer decided that the opposition was successful in respect of paints and closely similar goods. Application allowed to proceed for other goods in specification.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o04807.html