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 >> DV8 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o31905 (7 December 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o31905.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o31905 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o31905
Result
Section 5(2)(a): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition successful.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on registrations of the marks dv8 and footprint device DV8 (solus) in Classes 16,18,25 & 35, and on one registration of the mark DV8 in relation to retail services, footgear, headgear, bags and 'other associated goods'.
Having reviewed the relevant guidance on the subject the Hearing Officer found that the opponent's claim under Section 5(2)(a) was untenable. He therefore went on to consider the matter under Section 5(2)(b).
The respective marks were found to be 'similar to a high degree'. After detailed consideration the Hearing Officer found that the opponent did not succeed 'in so far as its case is based on the goods in its registration'. He therefore went on to consider what was the effect of the opponent’s registration in respect of retail services in Class 35. Having considered the matter in some detail the Hearing Officer eventually found that the competing goods and services were similar to a material extent. In the result the opposition succeeded under Section 5(2)(b).
There was insufficient evidence of goodwill and reputation to support a case under Section 5(4)(a) and this ground failed.
