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 >> SEGA LIGHT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o08401 (20 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o08401.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o8401, [2001] UKIntelP o08401 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o08401
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opposition based on opponent’s various registrations (Community and UK) of the marks SEGA and SEGA (stylised) in Classes 9, 16, 28, 38, 41 and 42, primarily in respect of electronic games apparatus, related software, and theme park and amusement services. Under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer found the respective marks to be similar, and in applying the usual tests he confined himself to a consideration of what he saw as the Opponent’s strongest case, namely whether there would be a likelihood of confusion if the marks in suit were registered in the face of the opponent’s registrations covering canteen and restaurant services. Even considering that case, however, he was not persuaded that the opponent’s evidence bridged the gap between those services and the "beverages with coffee, coca or chocolate base" covered by the marks in suit. Opposition on that ground therefore failed.
Under Section 5(3), the Opponent relied mainly on its undoubted reputation in Class 9 goods, given the limited use of their marks in respect of refreshment facilities by the relevant date, but the Hearing Officer found that even if beverages sold under the marks in suit were of inferior quality there would be no adverse impact on the opponent’s reputation, and in any event use of the marks in suit on beverages would have no adverse impact on the opponent’s trading opportunities based on its reputation in class 9 goods. Thus, opposition on that ground also failed.
The Hearing Officer also concluded briefly that the opponent would find it no easier to establish misrepresentation and damage for Section 5(4)(a) purposes than the adverse consequences contemplated by Section 5(3).
