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 >> REVERIES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o36002 (29 August 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o36002.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o36002
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
REVERIES (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o36002 (29 August 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o36002
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/360/02
- Decision date
- 29 August 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- REVERIES
- Classes
- 30
- Applicant
- Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG
- Opponent
- Mars UK Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. The opponents appealed this decision to the Appointed Person. In her decision dated 29 January 2003 (BL O/077/03) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer's decision.
Summary
The opponents' opposition was based on their ownership of a number of registrations for the mark REVELS in Class 30 in respect of the same and similar goods as those of the applicants. The opponents also filed details of use of their mark from 1967 onwards in relation to a particular chocolate product and the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents' mark was highly distinctive in relation to such goods.
Accepting that identical and similar goods were at issue the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks REVELS and REVERIES. He noted that the first four letters of both marks were the same but he considered that the respective marks were visually and aurally different. Also while dictionary references might be similar the Hearing Officer deemed that in reality there was no conceptual similarity. Opposition failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground.
In view of his finding under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer decided that the opponents could be in no better position under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) and that they also failed on those grounds.