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 >> EEZEEPAY THE EASY WAY TO PAY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o38403 (9 December 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o38403.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o38403 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o38403
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent's opposition was based on some 80 registrations and prior pending applications of their EASY and EASY plus descriptive element marks and they did not assist the Hearing Officer by indicating where their best case lay. The opponent also filed evidence of use of some of their marks but in the main these marks were in areas of trade far removed from those of the applicant.
The Hearing Officer, in her consideration under Section 5(2)(b), divided the opponent's relevant marks into three distinct groups.
As regards the first category the Hearing Officer noted that all these marks were still pending and concluded that even if registered they would have a very low level of distinctiveness bearing in mind the laudatory and descriptive nature of the word EASY. Taking all the relevant factors into account the Hearing Officer believed that the respective marks were different and would not be confused by the public.
As regards the second category of marks such marks as EASYCARD, EASY MONEY, EASYLIFE and EASYFUNDS were at issue. Bearing in mind the nature of the word EASY and the fact that all these marks, with the exception of EASYMONEY, are still pending, the Hearing Officer believed that the public would be able to distinguish all the respective marks. In the case of EASYMONEY these words have their own dictionary meaning and again the mark is different from that applied for.
In the case of the third category while the respective marks were similar the opponent's goods and services were different from those of the applicant.
Opposition thus failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground.
The opponent also filed evidence of use in support of such marks as EASYJET and EASYRENTACAR but such marks were not similar to the mark applied for nor were the respective goods and servicing similar. Opposition thus failed in respect of the grounds under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a).
