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 >> IXESSE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o54001 (3 December 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o54001.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o54001
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
IXESSE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o54001 (3 December 2001)
For the whole decision click here: o54001
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/540/01
- Decision date
- 3 December 2001
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- IXESSE
- Classes
- 18, 25
- Applicant
- Dovedale Enterprises Limited
- Opponent
- Hostettler AG Sursee
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of registrations for the marks IXS and IXS (stylised) in classes 18 and 25. They also filed use of their marks in relation mainly to leather goods and clothing for use in relation to motorcycling but the extent of that use was such that it was unlikely that the opponents had any reputation in their mark outside that specialised field.
Insofar as Section 5(2)(b) was concerned the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks IXS and IXESSE. The Hearing Officer found the respective marks to be different visually and also phonetically because he was of the opinion that the opponents marks would be pronounced as letters whereas the applicants mark would be pronounced as a word. Opposition failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer noted the opponents reputation in relation to motorcycling clothing and that even on the basis of the applicants exclusion of such goods from their specification he considered that closely similar goods could be at issue. However, in view of the differences in the respective marks he did not consider that there would be any deception of the public or damage to the opponents' business.