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 >> VICTORIA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o38601 (6 September 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o38601.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o38601 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o38601
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of VICTORIA plus marks, in particular, VICTORIA WINE and VICTORIA WINE COMPANY. The opponents are a substantial company with over 1000 off-license trade outlets engaged essentially in the sale of beverages and tobacco. They claimed to have sold tobacco products under an own brand label in the 1980's but this claim was not substantiated in their evidence.
The applicants indicated in their evidence that they traded in cigarillos in Spain and wished to sell such goods in the UK. In view of this admission the Hearing Officer found for the opponents under Section 3(6) of the Act and reduced the applicants specification to "cigarillos".
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had a significant reputation in their mark as a retailer of alcoholic beverages and tobacco products. However, he concluded that this reputation and goodwill did not extend to the goods themselves. This finding combined with the fact that the marks were similar rather than identical led the Hearing Officer to conclude that the applicants use of their mark in relation to cigarillos would not amount to a misrepresentation. A similar finding was reached under Section 5(3).
With regard to Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer again noted that the respective marks were similar but concluded that the applicants goods - cigarillos - were very different from the goods covered by the opponents’ registrations in Classes 30, 32 and 33 and also different from their services in Classes 39 and 42. Opposition failed on this ground.
