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 >> PULMOJET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o13503 (15 May 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o13503.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o13503
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
PULMOJET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o13503 (15 May 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o13503
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/135/03
- Decision date
- 15 May 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- PULMOJET
- Classes
- 05
- Applicant
- Medsym Arzteservice Informations – Und Veranstaltungsdienst GmbH
- Opponent
- Asta Medica Aktiengesellschaft
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6) & 5(2)(a)
Result
Section 3(6) - No formal finding.
Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Identicality of marks : unstylised mark in upper case identical with unstylised mark in upper and lower case.
Summary
The opposition to this international registration was based on an identical mark PULMOJET, registered in Class 10. The Hearing Officer decided, first, that despite the fact that the mark applied for was in upper and lower case type, whereas the opponents’ mark was all upper case, he would treat them as identical marks for the purposes of Section 5.
The issue therefore came down to a comparison of the respective goods. The application was in respect of "medicines for inhalation purposes" whereas the opponents’ mark was registered in Class 10 in respect of "surgical, medical and dental apparatus and instruments".
The Hearing Officer found a degree of similarity in the goods and this together with the identicality of the marks and the likely perceptions of the customer, persuaded him that there existed a likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5 succeeded accordingly. The Hearing Officer made no formal finding under Section 3(6).