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 >>
SUPREME DELIGHT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49501 (9 November 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o49501.html
Cite as:
[2001] UKIntelP o49501
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
SUPREME DELIGHT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49501 (9 November 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o49501
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/495/01
- Decision date
- 9 November 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- SUPREME DELIGHT
- Classes
- 32
- Applicant
- Tropical Delight Limited
- Opponent
- Sundor Brands Inc
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
-
As the hearing the applicants pointed out that the opponents had not provided details of their registered marks when they filed their opposition. However, the Hearing Officer determined that the applicants had been well aware of the basis of the opponents opposition and he allowed the applicants to file a further declaration to remedy matters.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of registrations for the mark SUNNY DELIGHT and variations thereof, in respect of identical goods, and substantial use of that mark for a short period prior to the relevant date. Because of the short period of use the Hearing Officer did not consider that the opponents had an enhanced reputation in their mark.
Identical goods were at issue and the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks SUPREME DELIGHT and SUNNY DELIGHT on a normal and fair use basis under Section 5(2)(b). While the word DELIGHT was common to both marks the Hearing Officer noted that the elements SUPREME and SUNNY were normal dictionary words with their own meaning. He concluded that they were different visually, aurally and conceptually and therefore that the marks as wholes were not confusingly similar. Opposition thus failed.