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 >> SUN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o35402 (27 August 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o35402.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o35402
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SUN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o35402 (27 August 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o35402
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/354/02
- Decision date
- 27 August 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- SUN
- Classes
- 35, 36
- Applicants
- News Group Newspapers Limited
- Opponents
- Sun Microsystems Inc
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the services in Class 35: "....... normal in trade for the providers of business management services to also be in the field of providing other business services eg business advice, consultancy, business support and business research."
Summary
This was one of three related actions involving the same parties and heard on the same day (see also BL O/353/02 and BL O/355/02). The opposition was based on a number of ‘SUN’ marks in the ownership of the opponents.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer’s review was much the same as in BL O/353/02, q.v. and came to similar conclusions save that in respect of the Class 35 specification he considered that similar services were involved and a likelihood of confusion therefore existed.
The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded accordingly in respect of the Class 35 specification, but failed in respect of Class 36.
The Hearing Officer considered that the evidence, as in the related case, BL O/353/02, was insufficient to support an opposition under Section 5(3), or an action under passing off; neither did it support the allegation under Section 3(6).