British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
BENZ BOOM ROCK SOUL AND DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o31500 (23 August 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o31500.html
Cite as:
[2000] UKIntelP o31500
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
BENZ BOOM ROCK SOUL AND DEVICE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o31500 (23 August 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o31500
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/315/00
- Decision date
- 23 August 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- BENZ BOOM ROCK SOUL AND DEVICE
- Classes
- 42
- Applicants
- Paul Neville Hendricks
- Opponents
- DaimlerChrysler AG
- Opposition
- Sections 3(3) & 3(6) (both withdrawn at the hearing), 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) and Paris Convention Article 6 bis (withdrawn at the hearing)
Result
Opposition failed on all grounds.
Points Of Interest
-
"It is not appropriate to skew the test of the ‘average consumer’ (Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co [1999] ETMR 690) in favour of a notional person ..... unless there is evidence that such a person is likely to be the average consumer."
Summary
The opponents are proprietors of the marks MERCEDES-BENZ & DAIMLER BENZ used in respect of a wide range of goods and services. It was common ground that the opponents have registrations which cover goods, similar if not identical, to some of the goods in the application for registration in Classes 9, 18 & 25. The application did not however accept that the services in Class 41 were similar to those provided by the opponents. The Hearing Officer also noted that certain elements of the opponents registration are subject to restrictions under Section 5(2)(b). The Hearing Officer found that the marks were not sufficiently similar as to give rise to a likelihood of confusion in respect of identical or similar goods (and therefore not likely to cause confusion in respect of goods not identical or similar, under Section 5(3)). The evidence provided by the opponents did not substantiate their claims under Section 5(4).