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 >> GLYCOMED (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o17399 (24 June 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o17399.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o17399
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
GLYCOMED (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o17399 (24 June 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o17399
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/173/99
- Decision date
- 24 June 1999
- Hearing officer
- Mr S J Probert
- Mark
- GLYCOMED
- Classes
- 05
- Applicant
- Glycomed Inc
- Opponent
- Nycomed Imaging AS
- Opposition
- Trade Marks Act 1938, Sections 9(3)(b); 10(2)(b); 11; 12 & 17(2)
Result
Section 9 - Opposition dismissed
Section 9 - Opposition dismissed
Section 10 - Opposition dismissed
Section 10 - Opposition dismissed
Section 11 - Opposition failed
Section 11 - Opposition failed
Section 12 - Opposition failed
Section 12 - Opposition failed
Section 17(2) - Opposition failed
Section 17(2) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the marks NYCOMED v GLYCOMED
- 2. Discretion in Class 5 products.
Summary
The opposition was principally founded in the opponents' use and registrations of their own mark NYCOMED, registered inter alia in Class 5.
No evidence having been adduced in support of the attack under Section 9 & 10, the Hearing Officer formally dismissed those grounds.
Turning to consideration of the ground under Section 12, the Hearing Officer found that identical goods were involved and he therefore went on to compare the marks. Here he found no likelihood of confusion and, given the manner of use shown by the opponents, this effectively decided the matter under Section 11 also.
Even taking into account the Registrar's long established "strict" approach to marks in Class 5, the Hearing Officer could find no basis for an exercise of discretion adverse to the applicants.