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 >> NATURES PLUS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o56601 (18 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o56601.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o56601 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o56601
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Not decided
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of the mark NATREL (and variations thereof) and NATREL PLUS in Class 3 in respect of the same and similar goods as those of the applicant. The opponents also claimed an enhanced reputation for their marks but the Hearing Officer concluded that while there had been significant user the evidence filed was not sufficiently precise to support a claim to an enhanced reputation.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that in the case of the NATREL registration identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks NATREL and NATURE’S PLUS. Compared as wholes he considered that the differences were sufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion even where identical goods were at issue. With regard to the comparison between NATREL PLUS and NATURE’S PLUS the Hearing Officer decided that there were some goods similar in the respective specification and that the respective marks were visually and conceptually similar and that on the basis of imperfect recollection there was a likelihood of confusion. The opponents were therefore successful on this ground in respect of some of the applicants goods.
As the opponents accepted at the hearing that they had no stronger case under Section 5(4)(a) as compared to Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer did not consider that ground further.
