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 >> FUTTI (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o52202 (18 December 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o52202.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o52202
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FUTTI (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o52202 (18 December 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o52202
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/522/02
- Decision date
- 18 December 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr A James
- Mark
- FUTTI
- Classes
- 25
- Applicant
- Rosco Clothing Limited
- Opponent
- Fuzzi SpA
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- The opponents appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 18 June 2003 (BL O/193/03) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer’s decision. In his decision the Appointed Person said that he had found the Hearing Officer’s decision surprising.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark FUZZI in Class 25 in respect of the same and similar goods as those of the applicants.
Neither party filed evidence of use of their marks so the only matter to be decided under Section 5(2)(b) was whether the respective marks were confusingly similar, it being common ground that at least some of the respective party’s goods were identical. As the respective marks FUTTI and FUZZI both commence with the letters FU and end with the letter I the Hearing Officer accepted that there was some similarity between the two marks. However, he considered the change of a double consonant within relatively short marks to make a striking impression. As the two marks were very different conceptually; FUZZI being pronounced “fuzzy” and FUTTI being pronounced ‘futtie’ or ‘futty’ he concluded that, overall, the respective marks were not confusingly similar even in relation to identical goods. Opposition thus failed.