British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
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 >>
MOBO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o43102 (18 October 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o43102.html
Cite as:
[2002] UKIntelP o43102
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
MOBO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o43102 (18 October 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o43102
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/431/02
- Decision date
- 18 October 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Knight
- Mark
- MOBO
- Classes
- 09, 16, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42
- Applicant
- Mobo Holdings (UK) Limited
- Opponent
- Arcadia Group Brands 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. Comparison of the marks MOTO v MOBO (stylised).
-
2. The opponents' claim that their registration of the unstylised word MOTO included within its scope all stylised versions "may be somewhat ambitious".
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents' registrations and use of their mark MOTO, and was principally directed at the application in Class 25. The Hearing Officer found the goods in that Class to be identical with those in the opponents' registration and went on to consider the marks at issue.
Despite his finding that the marks shared "a degree of oral/aural similarity" the Hearing Officer was unable to find a likelihood of confusion and the Section 5(2)(b) objections failed accordingly.
That effectively decided the matter under Section 5(3) also since the Hearing Officer could see no basis for success in relation to dissimilar goods when the opposition had failed in relation to identical goods.
The evidence relating to reputation and goodwill was insufficient to support a case under Section 5(4)(a).