For the whole decision click here: o09499
Result
Section 1(1) - Opposition failed
Section 1(1) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 3(3) - Opposition dismissed
Section 3(3) - Opposition dismissed
Section 3(6) - Opposition dismissed
Section 3(6) - Opposition dismissed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ mark, registered March FBI in Class 28. The Hearing Officer found no valid objection to the mark under Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a); the Section 3(3) objection was misconceived and there was no evidence filed in support of the Section 3(6) objection. All these grounds were dismissed. Under Section 5(2), owing to the dissimilarity of the goods he found no likelihood of confusion notwithstanding the fact that the marks were identical. Under Section 5(4)(a) he found that the opponents had not made out their case under passing-off.