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 >> SUN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o13703 (29 April 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o13703.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o13703 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o13703
Result
Appeal partially successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
At first instance (see BL O/354/02 and BL O/355/02)) the Hearing Officer had found for the opponents under Section 5(2)(b), in respect of the Class 35 services. The applicants appealed against that decision.
Reviewing the Hearing Officer’s written decisions, the Appointed Person agreed with the applicants that the Hearing Officer had not distinguished sufficiently between the various services specified in the application, which did not all bear the same degree of similarity, and he had not taken sufficient account of the exclusion of data protection services from that specification. He rejected however the contention that the Hearing Officer had not drawn any distinction between the two marks, SUN and THE SUN. He therefore went on to make his own assessment.
IN the case of the mark THE SUN, (application 2023364B) the Appointed Person considered that use on some of the services would not be likely to cause confusion. The appeal succeeded in respect of those services. The appeal was dismissed in respect of the remainder of the application, and the appeal was also dismissed in the case of the mark SUN, (application 2023364A). Provided a suitable amendment was made No 2023364B could proceed, and no costs would be awarded.
