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 >> MAXAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o07098 (26 March 1998)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1998/o07098.html
Cite as: [1998] UKIntelP o07098, [1998] UKIntelP o7098
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MAXAM (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1998] UKIntelP o07098 (26 March 1998)
For the whole decision click here: o07098
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/070/98
- Decision date
- 26 March 1998
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Tuck
- Mark
- MAXAM
- Classes
- 06, 19, 37
- Applicant
- Maxam Security Services Limited
- Opponent
- Regional Building Maintenance Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2) & 5(3)
Result
Section 5(2) - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(3) - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
- Closely similar proceedings had been decided in the decision of Mr D C Morgan dated 13 November 1997.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark MAXAM in relation to “adhesive-backed films of plastic material for window repairs and the like purposes” and extensive use of their mark in relation to the goods covered by their registration and also associated goods, particularly in the public sector.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks were very similar and went on to compare the goods of the opponents with the goods and services of the applicants. Having applied the usual tests he concluded that the applicants’ specifications in Classes 6 and 19 should be restricted and that Class 37 should be refused in its entirety.
Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer drew attention to the opponents reputation of their mark in relation to goods sold in the public sector. As the respective fields of activity would be closely related the Hearing Officer believed that use of the applicant’s mark could be detrimental to the opponents mark and take unfair advantage of the reputation of the opponents mark. Opposition successful on this ground.