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 >> MAXAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o07098 (26 March 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o07098.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o7098, [1998] UKIntelP o07098

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


MAXAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o07098 (26 March 1998)

For the whole decision click here: o07098

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/070/98
Decision date
26 March 1998
Hearing officer
Mr M Tuck
Mark
MAXAM
Classes
06, 19, 37
Applicant
Maxam Security Services Limited
Opponent
Regional Building Maintenance Ltd
Opposition
Sections 5(2) & 5(3)

Result

Section 5(2) - Opposition partially successful.

Section 5(3) - Opposition successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark MAXAM in relation to “adhesive-backed films of plastic material for window repairs and the like purposes” and extensive use of their mark in relation to the goods covered by their registration and also associated goods, particularly in the public sector.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks were very similar and went on to compare the goods of the opponents with the goods and services of the applicants. Having applied the usual tests he concluded that the applicants’ specifications in Classes 6 and 19 should be restricted and that Class 37 should be refused in its entirety.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer drew attention to the opponents reputation of their mark in relation to goods sold in the public sector. As the respective fields of activity would be closely related the Hearing Officer believed that use of the applicant’s mark could be detrimental to the opponents mark and take unfair advantage of the reputation of the opponents mark. Opposition successful on this ground.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o07098.html