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!
 |
[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 >> KOSCH device of a lions head (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o11008 (14 April 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o11008.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o11008 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o11008
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent owns six registrations for the mark BOSCH in a range of goods and services Classes including Classes 8 and 11. It was required to file “proof of use” in respect of five of its registrations and such use was claimed in very broad terms.
The opponent also filed evidence in support of its opposition but even here, while it claimed substantial turnover of over one £Billion there was very little specific detail in linking such turnover to the goods and services mentioned in its evidence. As a result of this the Hearing officer was unable to conclude that the mark BOSCH has an enhanced reputation because of the use made of it or that the evidence was sufficient to support the ground under Section 5(3) of the Act.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer established that identical and similar goods and services were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks KOSCH and device and BOSCH. The Hearing Officer did not consider the respective marks to be visually or aurally similar and as both marks might be seen as invented words there was no conceptual element to consider. In view of the nature of the respective goods the Hearing Officer thought that consumers would exercise some care and be concluded that the public would not be deceived or confused if they encountered the two marks. Opposition thus failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground.
As noted above the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that the evidence filed supported the ground of opposition under Section 5(3). This ground also failed.
