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 >> PRODIGY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o23304 (4 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o23304.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o23304 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23304
Result
Section 5(1): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on a community trade mark registration of the mark PRODIGY, registered in respect of wines and claiming a month’s priority over that of the application in suit. The question of priority had arisen at an earlier stage in the proceedings and the necessary substantiation of the claim had been provided by the opponents.
The Hearing Officer considered the matter first under Section 5(1). Since the goods concerned were the same, the issue to be decided under Section 5(1) turned on the identicality of the marks. In the result the Hearing Officer concluded that the differences in the marks were not insignificant and the marks were therefore not identical. The Section 5(1) objection failed accordingly.
The only issue to be decided under Section 5(2)(b), said the Hearing Officer, concerned the Class 32 goods in the applicants’ specification (namely beer) since the opposition clearly succeeded in respect of the Class 33 goods.
Having considered the matter, and particularly bearing in mind “the importance of the merchandising of the goods and channels of trade” the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion in the beers v wines clash also. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) therefore succeeded in respect of both Classes 32 and 33.
