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 >> TEFEX (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o09808 (7 April 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o09808.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o9808, [2008] UKIntelP o09808 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o09808
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent owns two UK registrations for the mark TEFLON in Class 21 and a Community registration covering goods in Classes 8 and 21. The opponent also filed evidence of use of its mark and even though the evidence was poorly focused and lacked clarity, the Hearing officer accepted the TEFLON trade mark has a world wide reputation for certain non-stick products and that this reputation extends to a range of goods in Class 21 including cooking utensils and kitchen utensils.
With regard to the proof of use provisions the Hearing Officer accepted that there had been use in relation to a range of goods in Class 21 but he noted that no user had been shown in relation to razors and cutlery in Class 8.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue in the respective Class 21 designations and went on to compare the respective marks TEFLON and TEFEX. While he noted that there was a slight aural similarity the marks were different visually, and there was no conceptual similarity. Overall he concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion of the public even taking into account the significant reputation of the TEFLON mark.
The Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had a sufficient reputation in its mark to support its grounds under Sections 5(3) & 5(4)(a) but its opposition failed in respect of these grounds because of his finding that the respective marks were not similar. The ground under Section 56 was also dismissed.
