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 >> SHEERSOLUTIONS... SHEER SOLUTIONS (Series of 4 marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o05207 (20 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o05207.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o05207, [2007] UKIntelP o5207 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o05207
Result
Section 5(1): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(a): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Not considered
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent relied upon a number of registered marks including the mark SHEER registered in Classes 6, 17, 19 & 37. It also owned the marks SHEERFRAME, SHEERGRIP, SHEERLOCK, SHEERSHADE, SHEERWOOD AND SHEERFLOW registered in various classes such as 6, 17, 19 and 22. The opponent filed details of use of this latter group of marks, and particularly of the mark SHEERFRAME which indicated extensive turnover in relation to fabricated windows and doors and parts therefore.
The Hearing Officer dismissed the grounds of opposition under Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(a) because the respective marks were not identical or near identical.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer determined that some of the respective goods were similar and went on to consider the respective marks. He considered that the opponent’s best case rested on its SHEER registration and this mark was compared with the mark in suit. In comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted that the element SHEER was descriptive in relation to some of the applicant’s goods and therefore the distinctiveness of the mark in suit rested in the combination. Thus while the opponent’s mark was an element of the applicant’s mark, the marks must be compared as wholes. The Hearing Officer considered both marks to be somewhat descriptive and also to be conceptually different. She concluded, therefore, that there was no likelihood of confusion and that the opposition
failed under Section 5(2)(b).
In view of her decision under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer did not consider the ground under Section 5(4)(a).
