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 >> DNET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o05499 (16 February 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o05499.html Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o5499, [1999] UKIntelP o05499 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o05499
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 56 - Opposition failed
Section 56 - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a TNET mark (and variations thereof) registered in respect of the same and similar services. They also claimed use of their mark TNET but such use as occurred was either very close to or after the relevant date of 13 October 1995 - the date of filing of the applicants application. This lack of use and reputation before the relevant date was fatal to the opponents ground under Sections 5(3) and 56.
The essential ground of the proceedings was under Section 5(2)(b). As identical and similar services were at issue the dispute rested on a comparison of the marks DNET and TNET. The opponents had filed evidence to support a claim that the marks were aurally similar; in particular they referred to the search rules operated by COMPU-MARK (a trade mark search company) that D & T should be regarded as phonetically similar. However, in this case the Hearing Officer considered the structural nature of the marks before him and decided that the pronunciation of the initial letter in each case would be accentuated. He therefore did not believe that aural confusion would occur and, as the marks were different visually and conceptually he concluded that the marks, compared as wholes, were not confusingly similar.
