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 >> ERGONOM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o23602 (12 June 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o23602.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o23602 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23602
Result
Sections 5(1) & 2(b) - Opposition successful (Provisional decision)
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
At the time of the hearing of this dispute the opponents opposition was based on their ownership of an earlier application in the UK for the mark ERGONOM in Class 20 in respect of the same and similar goods as those of the applicant. The opponents also claimed use of their mark from 1978 but this evidence was found to be unsatisfactory in many respects.
The applicants also claimed use of their mark from 1969 onwards and indicated that they had owned a registration for the mark ERGONOM in class 20 under No 1280312. This mark had not been renewed in 1993 due to an oversight when changes were occurring at the proprietor company. With regard to the applicants evidence of use claimed the Hearing Officer also found it to be unsatisfactory in many respects.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer considered the evidence provided by both companies in some detail. He concluded that neither party had demonstrated that they enjoyed a goodwill in the mark ERGONOM at the relevant date. Thus while there might be confusion in the marketplace, there was no misrepresentation. Opposition failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(1) it was accepted that identical marks and identical goods were at issue. The opponents were therefore successful on this ground. They were also found to be successful under Section 5(2)(b) where identical marks and similar goods were at issue.
The Hearing Officer noted that his decision under Section 5 was provisional in that no final decision could be given until, and if, the opponents applied for mark achieved registration. It is currently being opposed by these applicants.
The applicants also claimed the benefit of “honest concurrent use” but the Hearing Officer concluded that such use as was shown, did not assist them in relation to the Section 5 grounds.
