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 >> LOMBARD NETWORK SERVICES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o33203 (3 November 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o33203.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o33203 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o33203
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his written decision of 16 August 2002 (see BL O/343/02) the Hearing Officer provisionally found for the opponents (except in respect of Classes 37 and 38), but stayed the proceedings pending the eventual fate of the four earlier applications (two UK and two CTM) on which the opponents had relied. This was now known. The two UK applications had been refused and the two CTM applications had been accepted but with revised specifications. Applying these results to the matter in hand the Hearing Officer compared the opponents' remaining and revised specifications to those in the application (he saw no need to revisit his earlier assessment of the similarity of the marks).
The computer software and computer programs in Class 9, he decided, were not in conflict with the opponents’ revised specifications; the revision had also removed any similarity with the Class 35 specification.
The Class 36 application as amended (see below) was not in conflict with the revised specifications. The Hearing Officer’s earlier decision had found no similarity in the Class 37 and 38 specifications; the revision of the opponents’ specifications had made the gap even wider. The revision had removed any similarity in Class 42. In the result, the opposition now failed in its totality.
NOTE: Following advertisement, but prior to the filing of the opposition, the applicants had amended their Class 36 application. The opponents claimed that the matter should be determined on the basis of the specification as originally advertised. The Hearing Officer, however, ruled that Section 39 of the Act allowed an applicant to withdraw his application or restrict the goods or services covered by the application.
