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 >> VICTOR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o24405 (5 September 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o24405.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o24405 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o24405
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent owns the registered mark V device VICTOR in Classes 18 and 25 in respect of identical goods as those of the applicant. The opponent submitted that despite the stylisation of the mark in suit, it would still be seen as a VICTOR mark and therefore there was likely to be confusion with its mark.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer accepted that identical goods were at issue and that the only matter to be decided was whether the respective marks were confusingly similar.
The Hearing Officer first considered the marks visually and concluded that they were not similar in view of the stylisation of the applicant's mark. Aurally the applicant's mark might be referred to as VICTOR but even if this was the case the Hearing Officer was not certain that confusion would follow since it is well established that the goods at issue here, clothing and leather goods, are likely to be selected after visual inspection. As regards conceptual comparison the Hearing Officer noted that there could be conceptual similarity if the applicant's mark was seen as VICTOR but even here he thought the highly stylised nature of its mark would lessen the likelihood of confusion. Overall, the Hearing Officer decided that the respective marks were not confusingly similar.
