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 >> ABSOLUTE INTERNET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o33503 (5 November 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o33503.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o33503 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o33503
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on a number of 'ABSOLUT' marks, registered in various classes. The majority of these covered goods and services quite distinct from the services sought by the applicant. Two, however, were cited as covering identical or similar services. Since one of these was not an earlier mark, the Hearing concentrated on the alleged clash between the applications and the opponent’s mark 'ABSOLUT', a CTM application covering a number of classes including 35 and 42. There was no clash in Class 42, ruled the Hearing Officer. The respective Class 35 specifications however, involved identical services, namely ‘advertising services’.
The Hearing Officer therefore went on to compare the marks 'ABSOLUTE INTERNET' v 'ABSOLUT' and device, the distinctive and dominant features of which, he decided were ABSOLUT v ABSOLUTE. In the result he found the opponent successful in respect of Class 35, advertising services.
The evidence concerning reputation however did not support their claim under Section 5(3), neither could the Hearing Officer agree that a ‘link or connection between the respective trade marks' would exist in the minds of the consumer. The Section 5(3) ground failed.
The opponents clearly possessed a goodwill under the name ABOLUT in respect of vodka, but this was a field of activity so far removed from that covered by the applications in suit the opposition under Section 5(4)(a) failed.
The application would be allowed to proceed subject to the removal of the Class 35 specification.
The Hearing Officer made an award of costs which reflected the opponent’s limited success
