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 >> LEMONHEAD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o19398 (7 October 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o19398.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o19398

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


LEMONHEAD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o19398 (7 October 1998)

For the whole decision click here: o19398

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/193/98
Decision date
7 October 1998
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
LEMONHEAD
Classes
32, 33
Applicant
Carlsberg-Tetley Brewing Limited
Opponent
Ferrara Pan Candy Co Inc
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(a) & 5(3)

Result

Section 5(2)(a): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark LEMONHEAD in Class 30 in respect of sweets, confectionery etc. They also claimed use of their mark and filed details of modest sales of some £12,000 per year for the three years prior to the relevant date. Sales were through one UK wholesaler and retail sales were claimed through Woolworth, Nurdin & Peacock, Bookers etc.

Under Section 5(2)(a) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks were identical and went on to compare the opponents confectionery goods with the applicants goods of alcoholic beverages flavoured with lemonade and lemonade. Applying the tests set down in the TREAT case the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective goods were not similar and thus the risk of confusion between the marks was therefore unlikely. Opposition failed on this ground.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer noted the modest scale of use claimed and doubted that the opponents had a significant reputation in their mark in the UK at the relevant date. Such a finding meant that their ground of opposition under Section 5(3) failed at the outset.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o19398.html