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 >> Superdry (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o24604 (12 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o24604.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o24604 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o24604
Result
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents own two registrations (one UK and one Community) for a label mark consisting of the word ASAHI, ASAHI BREWERIES LIMITED, SUPER DRY, other descriptive wording and Japanese Characters, in Class 32 in respect of "Beer". They filed evidence of use of their mark from 1994 onwards and in addition to the use of the label mark there was some use of the words ASAHI SUPER DRY. In most instances use of SUPER DRY appeared to be descriptive in that the words were used in relation to "Dry Beer".
Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponents had established that use of this label mark meant that they had a reputation in the words SUPER DRY. The words were not prominent in the label marks and in any case appeared to have descriptive connotations. This being the case the opponents' case could not be sustained under Section 5(3) and this was without taking into account the fact that the applicants goods were far removed from those of the opponents. Opposition failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer noted that he could take a broader view of the evidence filed and take account of use in the form ASAHI SUPER DRY. However, even taking a generous view of all the evidence the Hearing Officer was not convinced that the opponents had established any reputation in the words SUPER DRY or that consumers would see the words as a badge of origin. On the contrary they were likely to see the words as merely descriptive. Opposition thus failed on the Section 5(4)(a) ground.
