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 >> DEVICE ONLY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o40902 (14 October 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o40902.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o40902
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
DEVICE ONLY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o40902 (14 October 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o40902
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/409/02
- Decision date
- 14 October 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- DEVICE ONLY
- Classes
- 09, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 26, 28, 37, 38, 42
- Applicant
- Lucent Technologies Inc
- Opponent
- Lucent Lighting 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
- 2. Costs: ‘The failure (of the opponents) to focus on the goods and services of particular concern until the hearing inevitably lead to some uncertainty on the part of the applicants as to the nature and extent of the case they faced.’
- 1. Comparison of goods/services
Summary
This was one of three related actions involving the same parties and heard on the same day, based on the opponents’ mark LUCENT and device of circular swirl or ring and registered in Class 11; (see BL O/410/02 and BL O/411/02).
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer considered that the marks had an ‘extremely low level of similarity’. The Hearing Officer then gave detailed consideration to the goods/services at issue and found no similarity, save that in Class 37 he considered that the services of "installation, maintenance and repair", relating to electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments was a broad term which would include those services in relation to lighting. In the result he found that there was no realistic likelihood of confusion.
The evidence of reputation covered the whole of the opponents’ business and did not separately identify the reputation attaching to their earlier mark in relation to Class 11 goods. Consequently, the Hearing Officer could not find the opponents successful under Section 5(3).
The differences in the marks effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a), as no misrepresentation would arise.