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 >> ROCKFORD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o40702 (14 October 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o40702.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o40702
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ROCKFORD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o40702 (14 October 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o40702
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/407/02
- Decision date
- 14 October 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- ROCKFORD
- Classes
- 18
- Applicant
- Terence Ball
- Opponent
- Rockport (Europe) BV
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See also BL O/408/02 which has been summarised in more detail and BL O/406/02.
- 2. A request to file additional evidence at the hearing about the applicant’s trading methods was allowed by the Hearing Officer.
Summary
These proceedings mirror the invalidity action taken by the present opponents against an identical registered mark owned by the present applicant in Class 25.In the proceedings under BL O/408/02 identical grounds were at issue and the conflict was between the same two marks as here, ROCKFORD and device and ROCKPORT.
In the proceedings under BL O/408/02 identical grounds were at issue and the conflict was between the same two marks as here, ROCKFORD and device and ROCKPORT.
In these proceedings the Hearing Officer found that even though identical goods were at issue under Section 5(2)(b) the marks were not similar and thus confusion of the public was unlikely. Opposition failed on this ground.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the opponents also complained about the applicant’s use of the name of American States as sub-brands which imitated their use of such names in a similar fashion. The Hearing Officer found that the opponents evidence was inconclusive at the relevant date and, in view of this finding under Section 5(2)(b) that the respective marks were not similar, he concluded that the opponents also failed on this ground.
Under Section 3(6) the opponents made a number of allegations about the applicants selection of ROCKFORD; an attempt to register ROCKFORT and their trading methods. However, the Hearing Officer considered that individually the opponents’ claims had insufficient weight; were not adequately substantiated and were inconclusive. Opposition failed on this ground.