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 >> DAKAR 4x4 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o33802 (14 August 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o33802.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o33802
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
DAKAR 4x4 (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o33802 (14 August 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o33802
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/338/02
- Decision date
- 14 August 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr S P Rowan
- Mark
- DAKAR 4x4
- Classes
- 12
- Applicant
- Dakar Cars Limited
- Opponent
- Societe TSO
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a) & 56
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Section 56 - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the goods: four wheel drive vehicles for sale in kit form for self assembly v motorbikes & bicycles.
- 2. Honest concurrent use.
Summary
The opponents in this case were applicants in a related case, in which they were opposed by the present applicants (see BL O/339/02). The opponents mark comprised the word DAKAR and a device of a head.
Under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer began with a finding of a degree of inherent distinctiveness in the opponents’ mark, but he found no evidence of enhanced reputation; no use had been made of the mark on any goods in Class 12, and the evidence of use in other spheres did support the claim. Comparing the marks the Hearing Officer found a high degree of similarity. Comparing the goods, however, he found some ‘albeit a low’ degree of similarity’. [He recorded however that were he to be found wrong in his findings in the related proceedings, BL O/339/02, q.v, then the opponents’ specification as filed would cover identical goods, since the result of those proceedings had involved the deletion of automobiles from the opponents’ application]. His conclusions in these proceedings brought him to the view that there was no likelihood of confusion, and the objection under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.
The remaining grounds under Section 3(6), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & 56 were considered but each in turn was dismissed as the evidence did not support the claims made.