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 >> ORIGINE WORLD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o24799 (22 July 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o24799.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o24799
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ORIGINE WORLD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o24799 (22 July 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o24799
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/247/99
- Decision date
- 22 July 1999
- Hearing officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- ORIGINE WORLD
- Classes
- 24, 25
- Applicant
- Vert Baudet (UK) Ltd
- Opponent
- Origins Natural Resources Inc
- Opposition
- Section 5(2), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
Opposition based on opponent’s numerous registrations of the mark ORIGINS (solus and with additional words and devices) in class 25 et al (but not Class 24). In dealing with opposition under Section 5(2), the Hearing Officer took the view that the respective specifications under Class 25 covered identical goods (notably clothing, footwear and headgear), whereas the applicant’s specification under Class 24 covered some goods at least which were not similar goods for the purposes of Section 5(2) and were therefore excluded from consideration. He therefore proceeded to compare the marks in respect of the identical and any similar goods, and applying the usual tests he found no risk of confusion due to the cumulative differences (visual and phonetic) in the words ORIGINE and ORIGINS and the presence in the mark in suit of the second word WORLD. He was also not persuaded that ORIGINS was a particularly distinctive mark, and took due account of the nature of the goods in question which would normally be purchased with care.
In regard to opposition under Section 5(3) (in respect of the Class 24 goods excluded from consideration under Section 5(2)), the Hearing Officer was not persuaded on the evidence that the opponent’s reputation in its marks, confined as it was to high value merchandise sold through exclusive retail outlets, was wide enough that the mark in suit would ride on its back with resulting damage, given also the limited similarity between the marks. Therefore, opposition on this ground also failed.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer concluded briefly that the opponent had only very limited goodwill in respect of clothing sales in the UK and this would not be damaged by confusion arising from use of the mark in suit.