For the whole decision click here: o10801
Result
Sections 3(3)(b) & 3(6) - Opposition not pursued
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition succeeded
Section 5(3) - Opposition not pursued
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition not decided
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opposition based on opponent’s various UK and Community registrations of jigsaw devices covering goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42. In considering what he regarded as the opponent's best case under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer concluded that identical or very similar services (recruitment and employment agencies) were involved.
Applying the usual tests, he further concluded that the public would not recall the juxtaposition of the various elements of the respective marks, rather they would be recalled simply as jigsaw devices, and given the inherent distinctiveness of the opponent's mark, and the closeness of the services, he found real likelihood of confusion, including association between the marks. Opposition on that ground therefore succeeded.
In respect of opposition under Section 5(4)(a), the Hearing Officer found no need to consider this ground, observing that if the opponent had failed under Section 5(2)(b) they would have fared no better under Section 5(4)(a).