For the whole decision click here: o28601
Result
Section 5(1) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2) Opposition succeeded.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicants filed their application on 13 August 1998 whereas the opponents filed their application for the mark BLUE in respect of identical services on 20 May 1998. The opponents also claimed use of their mark from July 1997, though turnover and advertising were modest. Under Section 5(1) the Hearing Officer noted that the marks were not identical, thus they failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(1) the Hearing Officer noted that the marks were not identical, thus they failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer noted that the services were identical and the marks were very similar. This being the case there was a real likelihood of confusion. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
With regard to Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off. The Hearing Officer concluded that as the period of use prior to the relevant date was short and turnover was modest, he could not infer that the opponents had any widespread reputation or, significant goodwill. The ground under Section 5(4)(a) failed accordingly.