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 >> POMTINI (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2007] UKIntelP o11907 (3 May 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o11907.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o11907

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


POMTINI (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2007] UKIntelP o11907 (3 May 2007)

For the whole decision click here: o11907

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/119/07
Decision date
3 May 2007
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
POMTINI
Classes
32, 33
Registered Proprietor
Beverage Brands (UK (Limited)
Applicants for a declaration of invalidity
PomWonderful LLC
Application for Invalidation
Sections 47(2)(a) (citing Section 5(2)(b)) and 47(2)(b) (citing Section 5(4)(a))

Result

Application for invalidation, Section 47(2)(a) (citing Section 5(2)(b): Failed. Application for invalidation, Section 47(2)(b) (citing Section 5(4)(a): Failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The application was based on registrations of the mark POM WONDERFUL and use of the name POMTINI in respect of a cocktail, devised and registered in the USA.

After dealing first with the question of the material date in these proceedings the Hearing Officer turned to the ground under Section 5(4)(a). Having examined the evidence, however, he concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated a goodwill in the sign POMTINI at the material date. The claim under Section 5(4)(a) failed, therefore.

After a detailed consideration of the matter under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer concluded that the differences between the respective marks were too great for there to be a likelihood of confusion. The application for invalidation therefore failed under both grounds on which it had been brought.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o11907.html