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 >> GASTRO -AD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o20003 (11 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o20003.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o20003
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
GASTRO-AD (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o20003 (11 July 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o20003
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/200/03
- Decision date
- 11 July 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- GASTRO-AD
- Classes
- 05, 30
- Applicant
- Institut Rosell Inc
- Opponent
- Mundipharma AG
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration of the mark GASTROBID in Class 5. The opponents also claimed use of their mark from 1987 onwards but the evidence filed showed that in use their mark was used with another mark CONTINUS and the Hearing Officer was unable to accept that the opponents had an enhanced reputation in their mark GASTROBID such as would assist them under Section 5(2)(b) or that they had a separate and distinct reputation in GASTROBID which would buttress their ground under Section 5(4)(a) – Passing Off. He thus concluded that they must fail on this ground at the outset.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective goods and concluded that as regards Class 5, identical goods were at issue and as regards Class 30 there was some similarity between the respective goods. In comparing the respective marks GASTRO-AD and GASTROBID the Hearing Officer noted that GASTRO was likely to be seen as a descriptive element and went on to conclude that the respective marks were not similar. Overall he therefore considered that there was no likelihood of confusion of the public if the applicants’ mark was registered and used.