For the whole decision click here: o48101
Result
Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition dismissed
Section 3(6) - Opposition dismissed
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ mark DHC. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found that the marks were not similar. The opponent had not demonstrated that in use the mark’s might be confused due to handwriting; consequently the Hearing Officer did not find any likelihood of confusion.
This effectively decided the matter under both Section 5(2)(a) and Section 5(4)(a).
Under Section 3(3)(b) the opponents alleged that use of the mark HHC on a topical preparation not containing hydrocortisone would be likely to deceive the public. However this allegation appeared in the submissions and not in the original grounds of opposition, and was consequentially dismissed. In any case, the Hearing Officer could see no reason why the public would ignore the first letter H and assume that the remainder of the mark referred to hydrocortisone.
The Hearing Officer also dismissed all three allegations made under Section 3(6). In particular he remarked that an applicant’s statement of intentions in relation to use made after the start of proceedings was not indicative of his intentions at the time of application.