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 >> LAMBRUSSI (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o44201 (9 October 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o44201.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o44201

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


LAMBRUSSI (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o44201 (9 October 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o44201

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/442/01
Decision date
9 October 2001
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
LAMBRUSSI
Classes
33
Applicant
Lanchester Wine Cellars Limited
Opponent
Halewood International Limited
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b) & 56(2)

Result

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition successful.

Section 56(2): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of registrations of LAMBRINI, LAMBRINI and device and LAMBRUCINI. Details of use of the LAMBRINI mark since 1994 was filed and the Hearing Officer decided that the opponents best case rested on their LAMBRINI marks. As identical goods were at issue the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks LAMBRINI and LAMBRUSSI. The Hearing Officer noted that both words were invented; had no apparent meanings; were the same length; had the first four letters in common and each consisted of three syllables. Both also had a concluding "I" which suggested that both marks consisted of a foreign word. Taking all these factors into account, including imperfect recollection the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion. Opposition thus succeeded on this ground.

In relation to Section 56(2) the Hearing Officer noted that as the opponents were a UK Company they did not fall within the criteria set down in Section 56(2). Opposition dismissed on this ground.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o44201.html