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 >> TORRELONGARES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o04502 (14 January 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o04502.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o04502, [2002] UKIntelP o4502
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TORRELONGARES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o04502 (14 January 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o04502
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/045/02
- Decision date
- 14 January 2002
- Hearing officer
- Professor Ruth Annand
- Mark
- TORRELONGARES
- Classes
- 33
- Applicant
- Convinca, SDAD, COOP
- Opponent
- Miguel Torres SA
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 8 January 2001 (SRIS O/012/01).
Summary
The Appointed Person reviewed the evidence of use of the opponents marks TORRES and three towers device which was before the Hearing Officer and agreed with his view that the opponents had established a reputation in their TORRES mark and their three towers device. Under Section 5(2)(b) it was common ground that identical goods were at issue and that the opponents strongest case rested on their TORRES mark and also another registration TORRES MILMANDA. The Appointed Person reviewed the Hearing Officer’s comparison of these marks with the applicants mark and confirmed his finding that the respective marks were not confusingly similar. Opposition failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the opponents referred to the fact that they also used countryside scenes with their mark TORRES and other TORRES marks. However, the Appointed Person noted that their evidence did not establish the necessary use to confirm an established goodwill in such elements, thus as the respective marks had been found not to be confusingly similar under Section 5(2)(b), a similar finding under this heading was fatal to the opponents case. Opposition also failed on this ground.