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 >> AWEAR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o32401 (30 July 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o32401.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o32401
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
AWEAR (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o32401 (30 July 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o32401
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/324/01
- Decision date
- 30 July 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- AWEAR
- Classes
- 16, 36, 41, 42
- Applicant
- Awear
- Opponent
- A-Wear Limited
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- Reputation arising from the manufacture of clothing in the UK. The Hearing Officer concluded that dealings with manufacturers did not give rise to a reputation, as an indication of origin, among the general public.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their use of the registered mark A-WEAR (and variations thereof including a/wear) on clothing manufactured in the UK and exported to the Republic of Ireland for sale in that Country.
As a first step the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks and concluded that there was strong visual similarities between them, also possible aural similarities. There was some evidence to suggest that the applicants mark was pronounced “aware” but this was not considered sufficient to impact on the Hearing Officers view that the marks were confusingly similar.
With regard to the question of similar goods and services, it was apparent from the evidence that the opponents were only concerned about “Provision and development of training courses, all relating to fashion and clothing” (Class 41) and “Accredition services, all relating to the clothing and fashion industry” and the Hearing Officer compared these services with the opponents clothing goods in Class 25. He concluded that there was in fact no similarity and therefore that the opposition failed in its entirety.