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 >> QUARTZ (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o16003 (16 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o16003.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o16003 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o16003
Result
Section 5(1) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2) - Opposition successful
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent’s opposition was based essentially on their ownership of a Community Registration for the mark QUARTZ (stylised) in Classes 9, and 42 in respect of computer programmes for use in banking and a range of computer programming and software development services. The applicant’s goods were “a feature of computer software for use in windowing and graphic applications; but not including any such goods for use in banking.
Under Section 5(1) the Hearing Officer considered whether the respective marks were identical, in view of the slight stylisation of the opponent’s mark. He concluded that the marks were so visually similar that any differences would be overlooked by the average consumer and therefore they must be considered identical. In any event if not identical the respective marks were very closely similar.
The Hearing Officer then went on to compare the specialised goods of the respective parties in some detail. He concluded that as the uses were different the respective goods were not identical. However, as both sets of goods were of the same nature, computer software, and that there could be overlap as regards users such as software developers and business and personal users, the Hearing Officer considered the respective goods to be similar. He arrived at a similar finding as regards the opponents services in Class 42.
In considering the overall situation and taking account of the fact that QUARTZ was a distinctive mark for the goods and services at issue, the Hearing Officer decided that there was insufficient clear water between the respective marks and that there was a likelihood of confusion. Opposition thus succeeded.
