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 >> WANNABEE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o39601 (10 September 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o39601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o39601
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WANNABEE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o39601 (10 September 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o39601
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/396/01
- Decision date
- 10 September 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- WANNABEE
- Classes
- 09, 12, 18, 24, 28
- Applicant
- Go Sport SA
- Opponent
- Calzaturifico Ruggeri & Pagnanini SpA
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition successful against Class 25. Opposition failed against other classes.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for ladies footwear in Class 25 for the mark WANNABE and use of the mark PATRICK COX WANNABE on other items of clothing in Class 25, leather goods in Class 18 and sunglasses in Class 9.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer noted the opponents evidence supported their claim to a reputation in the mark WANNABE in relation to articles of clothing within Class 25 and he found the opponents to be successful in relation to the applicants Class 25 application. However, the evidence in relation to leather goods in Class 18 and sunglasses in Class 9 was not persuasive and the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents failed in relation to the applicants other classes. A similar decision, albeit for different reasons, was reached in relation to the Section 5(3) ground.
With regard to Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks were essentially identical. In view of the decision reached under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer decided there was no need to re-consider Class 25 and he only considered the similarity of goods between clothing in Class 25 and leather goods in Class 18. In relation to the goods at issued here, he found no similarity and thus the opponents failed on this ground in relation to the applicants Class 18 application.