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 >> MEDISON (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o57401 (11 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o57401.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o57401 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o57401
Result
Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
With regard to their ground of opposition under Section 3(6) the opponents claimed that the applicants had filed their mark being aware of the fact that the opponents had a registration in the UK and that the parties had had disputes in other jurisdictions. The Appointed Person did not see how a filing in these circumstances could be an act of bad faith. An applicant was perfectly entitled to file an application if he believed that he was entitled to a registration even if he was aware of potential objections from another party. Opposition failed on this ground.
The opponents had filed evidence in support of a claim that they had an enhanced reputation in their mark in the UK. However, much of the evidence of use was after the relevant date and the Hearing Officer had decided that the opponents had only an average reputation in their mark at the relevant date. The Appointed Person accepted this finding and went one to review the Hearing Officer’s finding under Section 5(2)(b). He concluded that the Hearing Officer had applied the proper tests when comparing the respective marks M and device MEDISON and MEDICON; that he had taken account of the nature of the goods and the nature of the average customer. Having compared the marks globally the Hearing Officer had decided that there was no realistic likelihood of confusion. The Appointed Person confirmed this view. Opposition on this ground failed.
