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 >> EASYROOMS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o47302 (22 November 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o47302.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o47302
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
EASYROOMS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o47302 (22 November 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o47302
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/473/02
- Decision date
- 22 November 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- EASYROOMS
- Classes
- 36, 38, 39, 42
- Applicant
- Easyrooms Limited
- Opponent
- EasyGroup IP Licensing Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful, conditional upon Registration of EASYHOTEL.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Family of marks.
- 2. 'State of the register' evidence.
- 3. Comparison of the marks EASYHOTEL v EASYROOMS.
Summary
This was one of two closely related actions (the other being an invalidation action) concerning the same parties and substantially the same issues (see BL O/474/02). The opposition was based on a large number of EASY marks (eg EASYJET, EASYTRAIN, EASYBUS, EASYTRAK, EASYWEB etc etc). Despite this the Hearing Officer did not consider that the opponents had made good their claims regarding a 'family of trade marks' and could not rely on them for the purposes of Section 5. Moreover, there was nothing to indicate that at the relevant date all the 'EASY' marks were in common ownership. Equally, the 'state of the register' evidence and the evidence relating to company names, filed by the applicants, was of no assistance either.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found a likelihood of confusion in the case of one of the opponents’ marks, ie EASY HOTEL. However, this was not yet a registration, and might yet be registered for services that were similar to those in the application. In relation to the EASYJET mark, the Hearing Officer found no similarity in the services and hence no likelihood of confusion. He also dismissed the objections under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a).
The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded, in respect of the opponents’ mark EASYHOTEL, subject to its eventual registration. A final decision would therefore have to wait upon that outcome.