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 >> GINAARTI (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o10203 (7 April 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o10203.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o10203
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
GINAARTI (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o10203 (7 April 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o10203
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/102/03
- Decision date
- 7 April 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- GINAARTI
- Classes
- 25
- Applicants
- Avenue Fashionwear Ltd
- Opponents
- Gina Shoes Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark GINA in Class 25 in respect of "Articles of clothing, footwear, headgear". They had also used their mark in respect of luxury footwear and had a reputation in their mark in relation to such goods.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective specifications covered identical and similar goods and went on to compare the respective marks GINA and GINAARTE. The opponents argued that GINA would be identified by the public as an element in the applicants mark but the Hearing Officer did not readily accept this claim as he thought it more likely that it would be seen as a whole word (or perhaps a Dutch name) and pronounced as GIN – AARTE. Thus the marks were different phonetically and also visually and there was little if any conceptual similarity. Even taking the reputation of the opponents mark into account the Hearing Officer was of the view that the respective marks were not similar and that there was no likelihood of confusion. Opposition failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground.
In view of his finding that the respective marks were not similar the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents were in no better position under Section 5(4)(a) – Passing Off, as compared to Section 5(2)(b). He thus found that the opponents also failed on that ground.