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 >> GALAXY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o17900 (19 May 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o17900.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o17900

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


GALAXY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o17900 (19 May 2000)

For the whole decision click here: o17900

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/179/00
Decision date
19 May 2000
Hearing officer
Mr G Salthouse
Mark
GALAXY
Classes
05
Applicant
AgrEvo UK Limited
Opponent
Mars UK Limited
Opposition
Sections 3(3)(b) and 5(3)

Result

Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition succesful

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents owned the mark GALAXY and filed evidence of extensive use and reputation in relation to a range of confectionary products, in particular chocolate. The applicants proposed to use their mark in relation to chemical products for use on crops but their specification covered pesticides insecticides, herbicides and fungicides at large. The opponents feared that use of an identical mark on such goods would be detrimental to the distinctive character of their mark in relating to confectionary products.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had an extensive reputation in their mark, built up over some 40 years, and there was the possibility that the public might assume some connection between the parties and this would be a damaging association to the opponents confectionary mark. There was also the possibility of accidents if young children confused the two products and suffered injury as a consequence.

The Hearing Officer dealt only briefly with the ground under Section 3(3)(b) and concluded that that ground was misconceived and had no merit.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o17900.html