For the whole decision click here: o15902
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations of their mark PRAKTIKER, registered in respect of a wide range of goods. The Hearing Officer found that the goods in Classes 9 and 16 of the application were identical with those covered by the opponents’ registrations, and the marks were similar. He therefore found a likelihood of confusion in respect of their goods.
Under Section 5(3), however, he found that the opponents had failed to establish in evidence a reputation in respect of the goods covered by his CTM. That ground therefore failed; neither had the opponents shown that there would be a detriment to the distinctive character of their earlier mark.
In the result, the application was allowed to proceed if limited by the deletion of the goods in Classes 9 and 16.