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 >> CLASSIC DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o02598 (2 February 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o02598.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o02598, [1998] UKIntelP o2598
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CLASSIC DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o02598 (2 February 1998)
For the whole decision click here: o02598
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/025/98
- Decision date
- 2 February 1998
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- CLASSIC & DEVICE
- Classes
- 25
- Applicant
- Classic Manufacturing (Aust) Pty Ltd
- Opponent
- Asco Group Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(a), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(b)
Result
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- None.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on registrations in Class 25 of the marks KANGAROOS and the device of a kangaroo with the word KANGAROOS (stylised) in respect of the same and similar goods to those within the applicants application. They had also used these marks for some eight years prior to the relevant date. The applicants had a prior registration of the word CLASSIC within a device of a rugby ball and claimed some modest use of that mark.
The essential ground of opposition was under Section 5(2)(b) and as identical goods were at issue the Hearing Officer went on to compare the respective marks CLASSIC and device of a kangaroo with the device of a kangaroo and the word KANGAROOS (stylised). He determined that in relation to articles of clothing the word CLASSIC had no distinctive character and he did not see that the applicants prior registration assisted them in any way. This meant that he considered the device of a kangaroo to be the dominant and distinctive element in the respective marks and thus the marks as a totality were confusingly similar. The opponents were thus successful on this ground.
The grounds under Sections 5(4)(b) and 3(1)(a) were dealt with only briefly as these grounds had not been addressed in the opponents evidence. These grounds were therefore dismissed.