For the whole decision click here: o34299
Result
Sections 3(1) & 3(6) - Opposition failed. No evidence filed in support of these grounds.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed. Respective marks not confusingly similar.
Sections 5(3) & 5(4) - Opposition failed. Respective marks not confusingly similar.
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opponents opposition based on ownership and of a number of registered LINPAC marks in Classes 6, 7, 12, 16, 20 & 21 (but not Class 35). However, opponents also filed evidence to show extensive use of their mark in relation to packaging and also claimed that they offered advisory services as included within Class 35.
Essential ground of opposition considered to be 5(2)(b). Opponents goods and applicants services found to be similar but the marks PacLINC and LINPAC found not to be confusingly similar. Opposition under 3(1), 3(6), 5(3) and 5(4) also failed.