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 >> PRESIDENTE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o21102 (20 May 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o21102.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o21102
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
PRESIDENTE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o21102 (20 May 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o21102
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/211/02
- Decision date
- 20 May 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- PRESIDENTE
- Classes
- 32
- Applicants
- Cerveceria Nacional Dominicana, C. POR A.
- Opponents
- BSA (Formerly known as Besnier S.A.)
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations in Class 29 of their PRESIDENT marks. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found that the goods were not similar. In case he should be found wrong in this, however, he went on to consider the respective marks. These were similar, he found, but as he had earlier found that the goods were not similar, the opposition under 5(2)(b) failed. In any event, he believed, a global appreciation of the overall differences would indicate that there was no likelihood of confusion.
Under Section 5(3), the Hearing Officer having reviewed the evidence stated that in his opinion any reputation the opponents had in relation to dairy products under the PRESIDENT mark would not be damaged by the applicants’ use of their mark on beer. He was doubtful that any association between the parties would be made, let alone damage caused. The onus to demonstrate this was on the opponents.
Under Section 5(4)(a), the Hearing Officer found that the opponent had not shown that a misrepresentation would occur in relation to the goods specified.
Finally, he found that the allegation of bad faith (Section 3(6)) had not been substantiated.