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 >> LES PAGODES DE COS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o47801 (1 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o47801.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o47801 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o47801
Result
Sections 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Sections 3(6) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of three PAGODA label marks registered in Class 33 and the mark PAGODA registered in Class 32. Use was claimed by the opponents, particularly in relation to rice wine but their evidence failed to establish any particular reputation. Based on the breadth of the respective specifications the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the applicants mark LES PAGODES DE COS (meaning the Pagoda Of Cos) with the most relevant of the opponents’ label marks which consisted of the words PAGODA BRAND, Chinese characters and the device of a Pagoda. The Hearing Officer noted that while each marks incorporated the distinctive element PAGODA, the marks had to be compared as wholes and on that basis they were not confusingly similar. Opposition failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground).
Under Section 3(6) the opponents claimed that as the applicants use their mark in France on a chateaux wine, it was most unlikely that they would trade under the mark in respect of all the goods claimed - alcoholic beverages (except beers). However, the Hearing Officer noted that an applicant can apply on the basis of intention to use and, as the specification claimed was not unduly wide, he saw no reason to restrict the applicants specification.
