Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[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 >> HE TO SHE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o34799 (8 October 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o34799.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o34799
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
HE TO SHE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o34799 (8 October 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o34799
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/347/99
- Decision date
- 8 October 1999
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- HE TO SHE
- Classes
- 16, 42
- Applicants
- Mapleleaf Holdings Ltd
- Opponents
- The National Magazine Company Ltd
- Opposition
- Section 3(1)(a) Section 3(3)(b), 3(6) Section 5(2), 5(3) and 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed. Mark found to be capable of distinguishing.
Section 3(3)(b) & 3(6) - Opposition failed. Opponents claims not substantiated by evidence.
Section 5(2) - Opposition failed. Respective marks not confusingly similar.
Section 5(3) & 5(4)(a) - Same as under 5(2).
Points Of Interest
- 1. Decision of interest due to the fact that even though the opponents mark is included within the applicants mark, the marks HE TO SHE and SHE were found not to be confusingly similar.
Summary
Mark found to be capable of distinguishing since there was no evidence filed to indicate that it is generic or that other traders wish to use the term. Opponents grounds of objection under Sections 3(3)(b) and 3(6) not substantiated by evidence and therefore dismissed. Under Section 5(2) the opponents opposition based on ownership and reputation in their mark SHE. Goods the same (in Class 16) but marks HE TO SHE and SHE found not to be confusingly similar. Opposition under 5(3) and 5(4)(a) failed for the same reason.