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 >> KEMIFERM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o13200 (12 April 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o13200.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o13200

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


KEMIFERM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o13200 (12 April 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o13200

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/132/00
Decision date
12 April 2000
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
KEMIFERM
Classes
01
Applicant
Kemira Kemi Aktiebolag
Opponent
Kemin Industries Inc
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

Summary

Opposition based mainly on opponent's registration in Class 1 of the mark KEMIN, but reliance also placed on registration of the same mark in other classes and on numerous other registrations said to derive from and/or relate to that mark. Hearing Officer found in relation to Section 5(2)(b) that, by the relevant date, the only mark for which the opponent had established a reputation was KEMIN (in particular with a device element), and he further found that although the evidence could have been more specific this mark covered goods either the same as or similar to those covered by the mark in suit. However, he found no serious likelihood of confusion between these marks, whether visual or oral, especially since any allusion to "chemical" in the common first element of the marks would reduce its impact and further highlight the other differences. The opponent's evidence reporting instances of confusion was found to lack contextual or specific explanation.

The distance between the respective marks and the opponent's failure to establish a reputation in any other (dissimilar) goods meant that opposition under Section 5(3) was also unsubstantiated.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o13200.html