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 >> BRICKERS WE BUILD GOOD SHOES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o17601 (11 April 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o17601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o17601
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BRICKERS WE BUILD GOOD SHOES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o17601 (11 April 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o17601
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/176/01
- Decision date
- 11 April 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr S P Rowan
- Mark
- BRICKERS WE BUILD GOOD SHOES
- Classes
- 25
- Applicant
- M J L Holdings Ltd
- Opponent
- Kickers International BV
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
Opposition based on opponent's various registrations of the trade mark KICKER, all in class 25. Under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had established a reputation in the UK under its trade mark, and that identical or very similar goods were specified for the respective marks. He therefore proceeded to compare the marks, and applying the usual authorities he concluded that whilst use of the mark in suit might call to mind the opponent’s mark, there was no real likelihood of confusion in the context of goods in question (footwear), whether visual, aural or conceptual, even if BRICKERS was taken as the dominant element of the mark in suit.
He found, in particular, a strong conceptual link between the word elements and the (brick wall) device of the mark in suit, whereas the opponent's mark called to mind "Kicking". Opposition therefore failed on that ground, the Hearing Officer being undeflected by evidence suggesting that applicant also used the word BRICKERS solus on its goods, which he found to have no bearing on the outcome under Section 5(2)(b).
The Hearing Officer's findings as to the distance between the respective marks also led him to dismiss briefly opposition under Section 5(4)(a), being satisfied that use of the mark in suit would not amount to misrepresentation.