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 >> Verifiedalarms (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o17206 (21 June 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o17206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o17206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o17206
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent is the owner of a Community Trade Mark, registered in a range of Classes including Class 42, consisting of the word VERISIGN and device of a tick. This mark has an effective date of 8 May 2002 and this is the earlier trade mark as compared to the mark in suit. The opponent filed no evidence of use of its mark.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective services. The applicant’s specification covers “Monitoring of Security CCTV Systems in Class 45” whereas the opponent’s mark covers a wide range of services in Class 42 including in particular “Services concerned with the identification of the individual in order to permit transactions and/or secure communications via a computer system or network”. In the Hearing Officer’s view the nature of the respective services, their end users and method of use were all different and were not in competition with each other. He concluded that the respective services were not similar.
With regard to the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted the similarities in that both marks commenced with the letters VERI and in both cases the letter v incorporated a tick device. However, thereafter they were very different phonetically and different conceptually. Overall, taking into account the respective services, the Hearing Officer concluded that the public would not be confused and that the opposition failed.
