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 >> ONSITE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o03208 (6 February 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o03208.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o03208, [2008] UKIntelP o3208 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o03208
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition partially successful. Section 5(3): Not considered. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent owns a registration for the mark ON-SITE (stylised) in Class 21 in respect of a range of goods which the Hearing Officer found to be similar to many of the applicant’s goods.
Both parties filed evidence of use. In its evidence the applicant claimed to be the senior user but the use shown was descriptive use rather than distinctive use so its claim was not substantiated. As regards the opponent’s use this showed that it traded under the name ON-SITE and ON-SITE SUPPLIES but it did not brand its goods with its trading style.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer was not convinced that the style of use of the respective parties would lead to deception and confusion of consumers and there was no evidence from relevant consumers to assist the Hearing Officer in reaching his decision. Opposition failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer decided that while the respective marks were not identical they were very similar and he decided that with the exception of “bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use” the respective goods in Classes 3 and 21 were similar. Opposition thus successful on this ground in respect of all goods other than those referred to above.
Section 5(3) not considered.
The Hearing Officer reduced the opponent’s costs award because it had added a ground to its opposition under Section 3(6) and then dropped that ground on the day of the hearing.
