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 >> NURA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o03403 (3 February 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o03403.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o3403, [2003] UKIntelP o03403
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
NURA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o03403 (3 February 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o03403
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/034/03
- Decision date
- 3 February 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Foley
- Mark
- NURA
- Classes
- 03
- Applicants
- Dion Beauty Care Products Limited
- Opponents
- Tura International Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration in Class 3 of the mark TURA in respect of the same goods as those of the applicants. The opponents also filed details of use of their mark from 1996 to 2000 (the applicants mark was applied for in March 2000) together with a claim to use back to 1986. Turnover averaged some £150k per annum and some £80k has been spent on promoting the mark at trade fairs and advertising.
The applicants disputed that the respective marks were confusingly similar and said that in use their mark was used with a prominent device and this meant that there would be no confusion in the marketplace.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue (toilet soaps) and went on to compare the respective marks. Before doing so he determined that the opponents modest use of their mark was unlikely to lead to an enhanced level of distinctiveness.
In comparing the respective marks NURA (as applied for, not as used) and TURA the Hearing Officer was of the opinion that both would be seen as invented words consisting of four letters, the only difference being the initial letter. Compared side by side the marks could be distinguished but bearing in mind the similarities; the nature of the goods and taking account of imperfect recollection the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer noted that the mark NURA was used in green lettering on a white background surrounded by yellow and in association with a triple U device in blue with a red semicircle. It also incorporated the words SAVON, GERMICIDE, MEDICAMENTE in red lettering. The opponents mark as used showed TURA in dark blue lettering on a white background surrounded by yellow and in association with two v shaped logos in red. It also incorporated the words SAVON, GERMICIDE, MEDICAMENTE in red lettering. Based on visual considerations the Hearing Officer considered that there was similarity between the two marks.
The Hearing Officer considered that as the opponents had not established a reputation leading to enhanced distinctiveness under Section 5(2), he did not consider that they had sufficient reputation in their mark to buttress their ground of opposition under Section 5(4)(a). Opposition failed on this ground.