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 >> MOUNTAIN FOX (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o31999 (15 September 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o31999.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o31999
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MOUNTAIN FOX (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o31999 (15 September 1999)
For the whole decision click here: o31999
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/319/99
- Decision date
- 15 September 1999
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- MOUNTAIN FOX
- Classes
- 25
- Applicants
- Mr J Tilleard
- Opponents
- Fjällräven AB
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 3(1)(d), 3(6), 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & 5(4)(b)
Result
Section 3 - Opposition failed on all grounds.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(b): - Opposition not pursued.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
Opposition based on opponent’s registration of a stylised fox device mark in Class 25 et al. Finding no basis in the evidence for any of the Section 3(1) grounds, the Hearing Officer briefly dismissed them. The Section 3(6) ground was based on the opponent’s contentions that the mark in suit was the English version of the opponent’s name and in use was combined with a device mark including a fox motif virtually identical to the opponent’s mark. However, taking the view that the device mark also adopted by the applicant was not itself an issue before him, and being unable to attribute any improper motive regarding his choice of mark to the applicant, who had not attempted to conceal the additional device mark, the Hearing Officer also dismissed opposition on that ground.
In regard to opposition under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer was in no doubt that identical goods were specified under the respective marks in Class 25, and the matter therefore turned on a comparison of the marks. Applying the usual authorities, and taking the view that visual and aural confusion were not in play, he proceeded to consider whether conceptual confusion could arise, notably in the light of evidence suggesting that the word Fjällräven (meaning mountain fox in Swedish) was used with the opponent’s device mark, but he found no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, and in any event the word in question was not claimed as an earlier trade mark.
Opposition under Section 5(2)(b) therefore failed, and the Hearing Officer found briefly that the opponent was in no better position under Section 5(3) (in relation to dissimilar goods) or under Section 5(4)(a) given the failure to establish goodwill whether under the device mark per se or the composite mark including the word Fjällräven.