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 >> BLUE BAR CAF (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o28601 (2 July 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o28601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o28601

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


BLUE BAR CAFÈ (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o28601 (2 July 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o28601

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/286/01
Decision date
2 July 2001
Hearing officer
Mr M Foley
Mark
BLUE BAR CAFÈ
Classes
42
Applicant
Allied Domecq Retailing Limited
Opponent
Andrew David Radford & Lisa Radford

Result

Section 5(1) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2) Opposition succeeded.

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The applicants filed their application on 13 August 1998 whereas the opponents filed their application for the mark BLUE in respect of identical services on 20 May 1998. The opponents also claimed use of their mark from July 1997, though turnover and advertising were modest. Under Section 5(1) the Hearing Officer noted that the marks were not identical, thus they failed on this ground.

Under Section 5(1) the Hearing Officer noted that the marks were not identical, thus they failed on this ground.

Under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer noted that the services were identical and the marks were very similar. This being the case there was a real likelihood of confusion. Opposition succeeded on this ground.

With regard to Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off. The Hearing Officer concluded that as the period of use prior to the relevant date was short and turnover was modest, he could not infer that the opponents had any widespread reputation or, significant goodwill. The ground under Section 5(4)(a) failed accordingly.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o28601.html