British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
BUSTERS BANGERS CHEWY SAUSAGES FOR YOUR DOG (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o40801 (18 September 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o40801.html
Cite as:
[2001] UKIntelP o40801
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
BUSTERS BANGERS CHEWY SAUSAGES FOR YOUR DOG (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o40801 (18 September 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o40801
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/408/01
- Decision date
- 18 September 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- BUSTERS BANGERS CHEWY SAUSAGES FOR YOUR DOG
- Classes
- 31
- Applicant
- Phoenix Pet Foods Limited
- Opponent
- Mars UK Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2): - Opposition succeeded.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
-
One of the opponents registrations for the mark BUSTER was cancelled after opposition was launched but before the hearing. In view of the decision set down in TRANSPAY 2001 RPC 191 the Hearing Officer decided that the registration should not be taken into account in his decision.
Summary
The opponents owned a number of registrations for animal foodstuffs in Class 31 incorporating the word BUSTER. Under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and had little difficulty in deciding that as the word BUSTER was the dominant and distinctive element in the respective marks, the respective marks were confusingly similar. Opposition succeeded on this ground. The opponents had filed some use of one of their registered marks but the nature and extent of that use was insufficient to establish a goodwill and reputation in the word BUSTER, the Hearing Officer thus found that the opponents failed in respect of their Section 5(4)(a) ground.