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 >> TORREMAR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o24700 (17 July 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o24700.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o24700
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TORREMAR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o24700 (17 July 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o24700
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/247/00
- Decision date
- 17 July 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- TORREMAR
- Classes
- 33
- Applicant
- Vina Torreblanca SL
- Opponent
- Miguel Torres SA
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- The Opponents appealed this decision to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 8 May 2002 (BL O/207/02) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of the marks TORRES, MIGUEL TORRES, TORRES MILMANDA and a three tower device. User was of long standing and has been significant for a number of years.
In his consideration under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and based his comparison of marks on the opponents TORRES mark which he thought offered them the best change of success. The Hearing Officer noted that there was some superficial similarity between the marks TORRES and TORREMAR in that they have the first five letters in common but he went on to find them different visually and aurally and concluded that there was little likelihood of confusion of the public, even taking into account that the opponents had some reputation in their TORRES mark.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer noted that the opponents user showed TORRES used with other words and their three tower device. He therefore decided that their position on this ground was no better than under Section 5(2)(b) and he therefore found in favour of the applicants.