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 >>
e ORACLE BUSINESS EUROPE (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o05702 (7 February 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o05702.html
Cite as:
[2002] UKIntelP o05702,
[2002] UKIntelP o5702
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
e ORACLE BUSINESS EUROPE (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2002] UKIntelP o05702 (7 February 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o05702
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/057/02
- Decision date
- 7 February 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- e ORACLE BUSINESS EUROPE
- Classes
- 35
- Registered Proprietor
- Oracle Business Information Limited
- Applicants for declaration of invalidity
- Oracle Corporation
- Application for Invalidation
- Sections 47(2)(a) & 47(2)(b) (Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)); (Section 5(4)(a))*
Result
Section 47(2)(a) - Application for invalidation successful (Section 5(2)(b))
Points Of Interest
-
State of the register : the existence of other registrations in the ownership of the registered proprietor did not disbar the applicants from seeking invalidation.
Summary
The application was based on the applicants’ marks ORACLE registered in classes 16, 35, 36 & 41. The registered proprietor put forward the contention that in view of the existence of other ORACLE marks belonging to them and on the register the applicants were debarred from seeking invalidation of the registration in suit. The Hearing Officer, however, ruled that absent evidence of use this was merely state of the register’ evidence and did not affect his consideration of the application. He therefore went on to consider the matter under Section 5(2)(b), in which he found that the marks were similar, visually, aurally and conceptually, the services were the same or very closely similar; and the customers for those services, though likely to be ‘relatively sophisticated’ were nevertheless likely to be confused. The application under Section 47(2)(a), referring to Section 5(2)(b), succeeded accordingly.
The Hearing Officer did not go on to make formal findings under the other grounds.