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 >> ARMATIC (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o34001 (9 August 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o34001.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o34001
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ARMATIC (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o34001 (9 August 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o34001
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/340/01
- Decision date
- 9 August 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- ARMATIC
- Classes
- 09, 28, 36, 42
- Applicant
- Armatic AB
- Opponent
- Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- None.
Summary
The opponents based their opposition on their ownership of a similar device mark registered in Class 36. The opponents had extensive use of their device mark but such use was mainly in conjunction with other word marks. That being the case the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponents had a separate and distinct reputation in the device alone.
With regard to Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that there was a clash of identical services in Class 36 and possibly similar services/goods in Class 9. When comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted that the respective device elements were very similar but when comparing the respective marks as wholes, he decided that the presence of the prominent and distinctive word ARMATIC meant that there was little likelihood of confusion. Opposition failed on this ground.
Opposition also failed under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) because of the Hearing Officers finding that, compared as wholes, the respective marks were not confusingly similar.