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 >> PANACELL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o41300 (10 November 2000)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2000/o41300.html
Cite as: [2000] UKIntelP o41300
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
PANACELL (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2000] UKIntelP o41300 (10 November 2000)
For the whole decision click here: o41300
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/413/00
- Decision date
- 10 November 2000
- Hearing officer
- Mr A James
- Mark
- PANACELL
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant
- Satish Wadhumal Raisinghani
- Opponent
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition successful in respect of some of the goods specified.
Section 5(2) - Opposition successful in respect of the remainder of the goods specified.
Section 5(3) - Opposition dismissed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. "... where a mark with a reputation with the public is consistently used in the same typeface, the typography inevitably becomes a subtle (albeit peripheral) part of the distinctive character of the mark."
- 2. "The additional protection afforded by Section 5(3) is intended to extend the protection afforded to an earlier mark with a reputation to cases where i) the later mark is either the same of similar enough to the earlier mark to be detrimental, and ii) there is no likelihood of confusion under Section 5(2) because the goods are too dissimilar."
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents' mark PANASONIC. Under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer found the opposition successful in respect of certain goods specified in the application. The marks were not however, sufficiently similar as to allow a finding for the opponents under Section 5(3). The remaining goods in the specification were refused under Section 3(6). The Hearing Officer made no finding under Section 5(4).