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 >> FRUBETTO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o00203 (2 January 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o00203.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o203, [2003] UKIntelP o00203 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o00203
Result
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 three registrations of their mark FRUBES in Class 29. The Hearing Officer established that some of these goods were very similar (Section 5(2)(b)) and some dissimilar (in the context of Section 5(3)). The opponents also filed details of use of their mark FRUBES essentially in relation to fromage frais deserts from 1996 onwards and turnover was significant, reaching £7m per annum by the year 2000. However, this use was not put into context by way of market share etc so the Hearing Officer was unable to assume that the opponents had a reputation in their mark at the relevant date.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer determined that very similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks FRUBETTO and FRUBES. While the Hearing Officer accepted that there was some visual and aural similarity because the respective marks had the same first five letters he thought they were different conceptually in that the opponents mark appeared to be an invented word whereas the applicants mark looked and sounded like an Italian surname. Overall the Hearing Officer considered that the respective marks were not confusingly similar and he thought there was no likelihood of confusion of the public.
The Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents mark was a distinctive mark but that distinctiveness was not enhanced through use for the reasons stated previously.
The Hearing Officer dealt shortly with the grounds under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) because he did not accept that the evidence filed showed that the opponents had a reputation in their mark and because he had already decided under Section 5(2)(b) that the respective marks were not confusingly similar.
