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 >> HUG (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o07002 (13 February 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o07002.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o07002, [2002] UKIntelP o7002 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o07002
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of registrations for the marks HUGO and HUGO BOSS in respect of the same and similar goods. They also provided evidence of use of these marks in support of their opposition.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were at issue. He also determined that the opponents best case rested on a registration for the mark HUGO and went on to compare this mark with the mark applied for. The Hearing Officer considered that the mark applied for would be seen as the word HUG in stylised form and that it was therefore different conceptually from the opponents mark HUGO which is well known as a forename. He also considered that the respective marks were aurally and visually different and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks. The opposition thus failed.
In passing the Hearing Officer noted the claimed reputation for the mark HUGO and the statements made in evidence as to the similarity of the respective marks. However, he felt that such claims could have no effect in the present case where the marks at issue are so dissimilar.
