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 >> JACKPOT FLIGHT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o06598 (11 March 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o06598.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o6598, [1998] UKIntelP o06598
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
JACKPOT FLIGHT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o06598 (11 March 1998)
For the whole decision click here: o06598
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/065/98
- Decision date
- 11 March 1998
- Hearing officer
- Mr S J Probert
- Mark
- JACKPOT FLIGHT
- Classes
- 39
- Applicant
- Johannes Carel Van Wierst
- Opponent
- Scandinavian Airlines Systems Denmark-Norway-Sweden
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1), 3(4), 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(1) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(4) - Opposition failed.
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition succeeded.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration in Class 39 of the mark SAS JACKPOT in respect of the same and similar services to those of the applicant. The opponents also claimed use of the marks SAS JACKPOT and JACKPOT (solus) from 1992 onwards but little evidence was filed to show what position had been established by the relevant date 12 September 1994 (the priority date).
The grounds under Section 3(1) and 3(4) were dismissed by the Hearing Officer since the opponents’ arguments related to relative grounds and Section 3 relates to absolute grounds. The ground under Section 3(6) was also dismissed since the opponents filed no evidence in support of their claims.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar services were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks JACKPOT-FLIGHT and SAS JACKPOT. As regards the applicants mark the Hearing Officer considered the word JACKPOT to be the dominant element since the word FLIGHT is clearly descriptive in relation to the services at issue. As he considered the word JACKPOT to be a predominant element in the opponents mark, he concluded that the two marks were confusingly similar and that the opponents succeeded on this ground.
With regard to the ground under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer determined that the opponents must fail since they had failed to show that they had a reputation in their marks SAS JACKPOT and JACKPOT at the relevant date.