For the whole decision click here: o22100
Result
Sections 3(3), 3(4) & 3(6) - Not pursued
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) & (4) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The only ground of opposition with any substance was under Section 5(2)(b) of the Act and the Hearing Officer concentrated on that ground in his decision.
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of their marks SEBAMED and SEBAMED and device as registered in Classes 3 and 5. Continuity of use accepted by the Hearing Officer but he was unable to accept that there was any extensive reputation in the UK. The applicants claimed the respective marks were not similar and pointed to a number of MED marks on the Register which they considered to be more similar to the opponents marks.
The Hearing Officer noted that identical and or very similar goods were at issue so the dispute rested on a comparison of the respective marks NEVAMED and SEBAMED. The Hearing Officer accepted that the respective marks were the same length and contained similar elements but he concluded that they were so dissimilar visually, aurally and conceptually, that he could not foresee any likelihood of confusion.