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!



BAILII [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 >> SYNT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o17298 (20 August 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o17298.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o17298

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SYNT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o17298 (20 August 1998)

For the whole decision click here: o17298

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/172/98
Decision date
20 August 1998
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
SYNT
Classes
05
Applicants
Beirsdorf-Lilly GmbH
Opponents
Synthelabo
Opposition
Section 3(1)(b) & 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 3(1)(b) - opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - opposition sucessful

Points Of Interest

Summary

The Hearing Officer felt there might be some force in the opponents’ contention that the prefix SYNTH or SYNT alludes to the nature of the goods but he did not consider that the material before him gave him a sufficiently strong basis to decide the point in the opponents’ favour. The ground under Section 3 failed, therefore. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted the large number of marks on the Register, in Class 5, having SYNT as the first syllable, eg SYNTEX , SYNTEL. He decided that it was the differences in the marks as totalities which distinguished them one from another. It seemed therefore that confusion could arise (bearing in mind the goods were identical) in oral use. The opposition therefore succeeded.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o17298.html