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 >> REINDEER NOSES (RUDOLPH'S SPARES) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o38001 (4 September 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o38001.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o38001
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
REINDEER NOSES (RUDOLPH'S SPARES) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o38001 (4 September 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o38001
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/380/01
- Decision date
- 4 September 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- REINDEER NOSES (RUDOLPH'S SPARES)
- Classes
- 30
- Applicant
- Sweetmasters Limited
- Opponent
- Rudolph Company LP
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of registrations for the marks RUDOLPH THE RED NOSED REINDEER and device of a reindeer in a range of classes including Class 30. They also claimed rights in the marks RUDOLPH and RUDY, and ownership of the copyright in the song Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. The opponents evidence of use of their various marks was sketchy and no evidence of use in relation to confectionery.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and determined that the opponents best case rested on their mark RUDOLPH THE RED NOSED REINDEER which he compared with the applicants mark REINDEER NOSES (RUDOLPH’S SPARES). The Hearing Officer decided that visually and orally the respective marks were somewhat different but accepted that conceptually they were somewhat similar since both marks brought the same character to mind. He concluded, however, that the applicants mark had a significantly different "feel" as compared to the opponents mark and decided that confusion was unlikely.