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 >> CREDIT MASTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o05904 (10 March 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o05904.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o5904, [2004] UKIntelP o05904 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o05904
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposittion failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposittion failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposittion failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on use and registrations of the mark MASTERCARD.
At the hearing the opponent sought leave to amend their pleadings under Section 5(3) to include an objection in respect of same or similar goods/services. Having considered the application the Hearing Officer refused to allow the pleadings to be amended.
Also during the course of the hearing, the applicant offered an amendment of their Class 36 specifications to make it clear that the services were “for businesses”. The Hearing Officer therefore proceeded on the basis of the revised specification.
The services were similar, he found but the marks had “a very low level of similarity”. The opponent, “at a general level” had a reputation for financial services but when the public thought about MASTERCARD they would think, in particular, of the famous credit card. The opponent’s best case was in respect of the Class 36 services but even allowing for their reputation the Hearing Officer did not see a likelihood of confusion arising from use of the mark CREDIT MASTER. The Section 5(2)(b) objection failed accordingly.
Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer did not believe that the similarity between the marks was enough for the average consumer to see any link between them, but even if he was wrong in this, he did not find that the opponent had made out a case of damage to their reputation.
This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) also, and the Hearing Officer made an award of costs to the applicant which reflected, to some extent, unhelpful behaviour of both sides.
