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 >> ALDO’S (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o34203 (6 November 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o34203.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o34203 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o34203
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of registrations of their ALDI mark in a range of Classes including Classes 29, 30 and 35. The applicants accepted that the opponents had a reputation in their mark.
The applicants explained why they had adopted their ALDO’S mark and claimed that it was an Italian Christian name. They claimed that the mark had been put into use, after the date of filing, in relation to microwaveable snack food products and they were not aware of any confusion between the respective marks.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the applicants argued that the opponents in their pleadings, which were somewhat unclear, had restricted their opposition to identical goods only. The opponents disputed this and the Hearing Officer decided that as the opposition was under Section 5(2)(b) similar goods must also be considered. In any event it was a fact that in most instances identical goods were at issue. The Hearing Officer then compared the respective marks ALDI and ALDO’S and decided that while there were some similarities it was likely that they would be pronounced as AL-DEE and AL-DOH’S and concluded that they were not so similar as to lead to confusion. Opposition failed on this ground.
The opponents also failed on the Section 5(4)(a) ground in view of the Hearing Officer’s finding that the respective marks were not similar.
