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 >> TERRAPODS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2003] UKIntelP o14303 (27 May 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o14303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o14303
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TERRAPODS (Trade Mark: Invalidity) [2003] UKIntelP o14303 (27 May 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o14303
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/143/03
- Decision date
- 27 May 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mrs S Long
- Mark
- TERRAPODS
- Classes
- 09, 16
- Registered Proprietor
- NlightN Multimedia Ltd
- Applicants for a Declaration of Invalidity
- Terra Networks SA
- Application for Invalidation
- Section 47(2) (Section 5(2)(b); 5(3) & Section 5(4)(a)
Result
Application for invalidation Section 47(2), citing Section 5(2)(b) dismissed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Visual selection of goods; low visual similarity in marks TERRA v TERRAPODS.
Summary
The application was based on a number of registrations of TERRA marks in the ownership of the applicants. The registered proprietors did not file a TM8 but sent a letter refuting the applicants’ allegations. The absence of a formal defence, however, did not displace the presumption of validity afforded by Section 72.
The Hearing Officer found some conceptual similarity in the marks but little visual or aural similarity. All the registered proprietors’ goods in Class 9 were identical or similar to some of the goods of the applicants’ specification; and some of the registered proprietors’ goods in Class 16 were identical with those falling within the applicants’ specification. However, taking account of the low visual similarity of the marks and the fact that the goods concerned would primarily be chosen visually, the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion. The application for invalidation based on Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly. The applicants had provided no evidence in support of the application under Sections 5(3) or 5(4)(a); the application was dismissed accordingly.