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 >> HANSON PARTNERS Heraldic Lion Device (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o27608 (10 October 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o27608.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o27608 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o27608
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In these proceedings only Classes 24, 35 and 45 are being opposed. The opponent owns the mark ANSON’S registered in Class 35 in respect of “retail trade services”. Neither side filed evidence of use of their marks.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the applicant’s goods and services with the opponent’s services and, bearing in mind the width of the opponent’s specification, concluded that identical services were at issue in the respective Class 35 specifications; that similar services were at issue in respect of the applicant’s Class 45 specification and that similar goods and services were at issue in respect of the applicant’s Class 24 goods specification. As regards the respective marks the Hearing Officer accepted that there was some aural similarity but only a low level of visual similarity. Also both marks were likely to be seen as surnames and consumers are used to distinguishing between different surnames either as trade marks or in other walks of life. The Hearing Officer concluded that overall confusion between the respective marks was unlikely and that the opposition failed.
In its written submissions the opponent drew attention to the fact that it had successful opposed an application for the mark HANSON at OHIM. The Hearing Officer noted that that conflict involved identical goods in Classes 18 and 25 and the application was for the mark HANSON. She therefore did not find that decision persuasive in relation to these proceedings.
