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 >> EASYRAMP (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o27808 (13 October 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o27808.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o27808 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o27808
Result
Section 3(6): Opposition dismissed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition partially successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicant applied for the following specification:
“Ramps for the loading and unloading of goods vehicles; wheelchair ramps; doorway/threshold ramps; curb/step ramps in Class 7”.
The opponent’s opposition was based on its prior use of the mark EASYRAMP(S) in relation to container loading ramps for industrial use. It provided evidence to substantiate use in relation to the rental and sale of its industrial ramps from June 2004 onwards.
The applicant also filed evidence of use of its mark form 1995 onwards in relation to ramps for use by the disabled. Whilst the evidence was not particularly well detailed it was not challenged by the applicant so was accepted by the Hearing Officer at face value.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer determined that the opponent was the senior user but only in respect of ramps for use by the disabled. In her view these goods are very different from the goods of the opponent whose goods were container loading ramps for industrial use. The lack of evidence of confusion from the parties was some confirmation that the respective goods were very different. Thus the opponent was the senior user in relation to industrial ramps and the opposition succeeded in respect of such goods. The application would be allowed to proceed in respect of “Wheelchair ramps and ramps for used by the disabled”.
The ground under Section 3(6) was dismissed as no evidence had been filed to prove a claim to “bad faith”.
