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 >> POWERCARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o46601 (24 October 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o46601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o46601
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
POWERCARE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o46601 (24 October 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o46601
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/466/01
- Decision date
- 24 October 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- POWERCARE
- Classes
- 07, 12
- Applicant
- Cummins Engine Company Inc
- Opponent
- Perkins Holdings Limited
- 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 failed
Points Of Interest
- Family of marks. A claim by the opponents that they could rely on the benefits of use of a family of POWER plus marks was not substantiated by the evidence filed.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of POWERPART registrations in various classes including Classes 7 and 9, PERKINS POWERPAK (POWERPAK disclaimed) and POWERPIC. Details of user of the mark POWERPART from 1980 onwards in relation to parts and kits for the repair and servicing of engines was filed. It was accepted by the Hearing Officer that identical or closely similar goods were at issue so the conflict under Section 5(2)(b) fell to be decided by comparing the respective marks POWERPART and POWERCARE. The Hearing Officer considered that there was some visual similarity but that they were different phonetically and conceptually. In view of the specialised nature of the goods the Hearing Officer believed they would be selected with care and therefore confusion was unlikely.
As the Hearing Officer held that the respective marks were not confusingly similar he dealt only briefly with the grounds under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a) and concluded that the opponents also failed on these grounds.