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 >> GEORGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o53202 (23 September 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o53202.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o53202
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
GEORGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o53202 (23 September 2002)
For the whole decision click here: o53202
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/532/02
- Decision date
- 23 September 2002
- Hearing officer
- Mr David Kitchin QC
- Mark
- GEORGE
- Classes
- 03
- Applicant
- Asda Stores Limited
- Opponent
- Giorgio Beverly Hills Inc
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Appeal dismissed. Opposition failed.
.. - ..
Points Of Interest
- 1. See Hearing Officer's decision dated 14 March 2002 (BL O/116/02).
Summary
In his decision dated 14 March 2002 (BL O/116/02) the Hearing Officer had decided that the respective marks GEORGE (the distinctive element in the applicant's mark) and GIORGIO were not confusingly similar and therefore there was no likelihood of confusion at the relevant date.
On appeal the opponent argued that the Hearing Officer had given insufficient weight to the visual and aural similarities of the respective marks, which were in fact the same name in the English and Italian languages; had given insufficient weight to the reputation of the GIORGIO mark and had wrongly taken account of the BULER decision which had not been cited by either party at the hearing before the Hearing Officer.
The Appointed Person examined the opponent's complaints fully but concluded that the Hearing Officer had made no error in principal in comparing the respective marks and he agreed with the Hearing Officer's view that the evidence filed by the opponent did not prove that GIORGIO had an enhanced reputation in relation to Class 3 goods. The Appointed Person accepted that there was merit in the final point re BULER but accepted that the Hearing Officer had merely quoted it to make the point that a consumer would recognise a well known forename such as GEORGE and would be put on inquiry if the name was encountered with a different spelling. Appeal dismissed.