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 >> EPX EUROPEAN POWER EXCHANGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o31002 (1 August 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o31002.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o31002 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o31002
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents oppositin was based on their ownership of an application for a Community Trade Mark consisting of the letters APX, a globe device and the words AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE in Classes 9, 35 and 42 in respect of a range of similar goods and services to those of the applicants. This application had an earlier date of filing as compared to the application in suit.
In their grounds of opposition the opponents identified the particular goods and services which they considered were similar. At the hearing an attempt was made to oppose the whole application but the Hearing Officer refused to allow any widening of the original claim.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer applied the usual tests in comparing the opponents’ goods and services with the applicants’ services and determined that a range of identical and similar goods and services were at issue. In comparing the respective marks it was common ground that the most prominent elements in the respective marks were the letters EPX and APX. However, comparing the marks as wholes and taking account of the specialised nature of the goods and services, the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were not confusingly similar. Opposition thus failed.
