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 >> EN SURE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o28203 (19 September 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o28203.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o28203 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o28203
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicant’s mark was applied for in respect of 'Sanitary towels and tampons' whereas the opponents had a number of registrations in Class 5 for the marks ENSURE, ENSURE PLUS and ENSURE and device in respect of ‘diabetic substances for medical use and invalids foods'. Two of the registrations also covered 'Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary substances and preparations' and these were part cancelled for such goods on application of these applicants after the relevant date. The Hearing Officer thus considered the opponents specification in full as at the relevant date.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer had no difficulty in deciding that the respective marks were very similar. In passing he noted that ENSURE was an ordinary dictionary word with meanings relevant to the goods at issue. As regards the respective goods the Hearing Officer decided that they were different and that there was no likelihood of confusion.
Under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had shown that they had a reputation in their mark in relation to specific goods, namely invalids foods, but he considered these to be so different from sanitary towels and tampons that there was no likelihood of association between the respective marks or that there would be any affect on the distinctiveness of the opponents marks. Opposition also failed on these grounds.
