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 >> MARTEX LUXOR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o10205 (18 April 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o10205.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o10205 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o10205
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition successful.
Section 5(4)(a): - Not considered.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent (hereafter referred to as Readmans) owns a registration of the mark LUXOR and device in Class 24. Readmans also claimed use of its mark but such evidence as was filed was insufficient to show that it had a reputation in its mark at the relevant date.
The applicant (hereafter referred to as Westpoint) also filed evidence. It referred to earlier opposition proceedings between the parties and stated that in those proceedings Readmans had not claimed use of its mark.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective goods in Class 24 and concluded that identical goods were at issue. As regards WestPoint's goods in Class 27 - bath rugs and bath mats - the Hearing Officer determined that such goods were very similar to the textile articles and towels within Readmans Class 24 registration. In comparing the respective marks LUXOR and device and MARTEX LUXOR the Hearing Officer decided that LUXOR was the dominant element in Readmans mark. Thus there was similarity between the respective marks visually, phonetically and also, in some cases, conceptually. It was also possible that MARTEX in WestPoint's mark would be seen as a house mark combined with the LUXOR element as a subsidiary name. Overall the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were similar and that Readmans succeeded in their ground under Section 5(2)(b).
The Section 5(4)(a) ground not considered in view of the decision under Section 5(2)(b). In any case Readmans had failed to establish a reputation in its mark at the relevant date.
