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 >> PUCCI Designer Petwear device of a Union Flag (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o02408 (30 January 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o02408.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o2408, [2008] UKIntelP o02408

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


PUCCI Designer Petwear device of a Union Flag (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o02408 (30 January 2008)

For the whole decision click here: o02408

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/024/08
Decision date
30 January 2008
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
PUCCI Designer Petwear & device of a Union Flag
Classes
06, 20, 21
Applicant
Pucci Petwear Ltd
Opponent
Emilio Pucci SRL
Opposition
Sections 5(3), 5(4)(a) & Section 56

Result

Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition successful. Section 56: Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponent owns the mark EMILIO PUCCI in Class 25 in respect of a range of outer clothing for women. It operates in the designer sector of the market and it filed evidence to establish that it had a reputation and goodwill in the marks EMILIO PUCCI and PUCCI in relation to ladies clothing. It also filed evidence to show that famous fashion designers often extend their brand into goods for the care of pets, the field in which the applicant operates.

The Hearing Officer decided that the opponent did not have a sufficient reputation to sustain its ground under Section 5(3); nor was it a famous or well known mark in the context of Section 56. Both grounds dismissed.

Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had a reputation and goodwill in the mark PUCCI at the relevant date; the date of application of the mark in suit. Thus essentially identical marks were at issue and in view of the practice of “brand stretching” into activities such as pet care, the Hearing Officer decided that the public could well assume a connection with the PUCCI fashion house or by way of licence. The Hearing Officer went on to find the opponent successful on this ground



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o02408.html