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 >> sk:n SK:N (series of 2 marks) sk:n skin knowledge network (series of 7 marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o12407 (11 May 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o12407.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o12407

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


sk:n SK:N (series of 2 marks) sk:n skin knowledge network (series of 7 marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o12407 (11 May 2007)

For the whole decision click here: o12407

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/124/07
Decision date
11 May 2007
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
sk:n SK:N (series of 2 marks) sk:n skin knowledge network (series of 7 marks)
Classes
03
Applicant
Lasercare Clinics (Harrogate) Limited
Opponent
The Procter & Gamble Company
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponent owns the mark SK-II in class 3 in respect of identical and similar goods. It is only opposing Class 3 of the applicant’s applications.

The opponent also filed evidence of use of its mark and claimed an enhanced reputation but the Hearing Officer rejected this claim on the basis: 1. It was not pleaded, 2. It was not made out and 3. If its mark is distinctive, as claimed by the opponent, the use would not assist its case.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks on the basis that the opponent’s mark would be seen as SK2 and the applications mark as SKN with a strong allusion to the word skin because of the way it is presented. While there is some similarity because of the common element SK, the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were not confusingly similar and that the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o12407.html