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!



BAILII [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 >> VIÑA SAN PEDRO, 1865 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o40103 (19 December 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o40103.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o40103

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


VIÑA SAN PEDRO, 1865 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o40103 (19 December 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o40103

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/401/03
Decision date
19 December 2003
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
VIÑA SAN PEDRO, 1865
Classes
33
Applicant
Vina San Pedro SA
Opponent
Vranken Monopole
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on marks which, in essence, comprised wine labels showing the words SAO PEDRO together with other written material.

Taking first the objection under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found goods both identical and similar to be involved.

The marks too were similar, he found; the 1865 element would, he thought, be seen merely as a date. After considering other relevant matters the Hearing Officer considered that there existed a likelihood of confusion. The fact that the applicants already had a registration of SAN PEDRO, which the Hearing Officer described as "a slightly odd circumstance", did not provide a defence; the opponents could be minded to take invalidity action.

The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded.

This opposition under Section 5(4)(a), had it still been crucial, could only have succeeded to the extent of an exclusion of 'port' from the applicants' specification.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o40103.html