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 >> BLAST (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49601 (9 November 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o49601.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o49601
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BLAST (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49601 (9 November 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o49601
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/496/01
- Decision date
- 9 November 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- BLAST
- Classes
- 03, 42
- Applicant
- Maria Papageorgiou
- Opponent
- Tony Marterie & Associates
- 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
- None.
Summary
The opponents owned registrations for the mark BLAST, including an identical mark to the first mark in the series, in Classes 9, 18 and 25. They claimed use in relation to goods in these classes but their evidence only substantiated use in relation to items of ladies clothing in Class 25. Even here, the Hearing Officer did not accept that a significant reputation or goodwill had been created.
Under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer noted that identical marks were at issue but determined that the goods of the opponents were in no way similar to the goods and services claimed by the applicants. The opponents thus failed on this ground.
With regard to the ground under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - The opponents had submitted that goods in Classes 3, 9, 18 and 25 are all linked in the sense that they are fashion goods and it was normal for fashion houses to extend their range of goods over all these classes. However, the Hearing Officer noted in this case that the proved use extended only to ladies clothing; that the opponents had not shown that they were a fashion house or that the general public would have an expectation that they would trade in cosmetics etc. The opponents failed on this ground. They also failed under Section 5(3) because the Hearing Officer concluded that their reputation in respect of ladies clothing was insufficient to extend into another and completely different field such as cosmetics.