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 >> CONDE DE LLADRO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o20503 (16 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o20503.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o20503
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CONDE DE LLADRO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o20503 (16 July 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o20503
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/205/03
- Decision date
- 16 July 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- CONDE DE LLADRO
- Classes
- 33
- Applicant
- Rosa Ma Lladro Castello
- Opponent
- Lladro Comercial SA
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the marks, LLADRO and a flower device v CONDE DE LLADRO and heraldic device.
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations (UK and Community Trade Mark) and use of their mark LLADRO and device, in Classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 35.
The Hearing dealt firstly with the Section 5(3) ground. Comparing the marks, the Hearing Officer considered that, on a visual, aural and conceptual basis, they were similar. There was no dispute that the respective goods/services were not similar. The question therefore turned on the evidence relating to the opponents’ reputation. Despite the deficiencies in this, however, the Hearing Officer was able to find, "albeit with some hesitation", that the opponents had a reputation in Class 21 products. However, there was nothing to show that there would be detriment to this by registration. The Section 5(3) ground failed.
Turning to the Section 5(4)(a) ground, the Hearing Officer eventually found that the opponents had not discharged the onus of showing that misrepresentation would occur in relation to the goods specified. This ground also failed.
The allegation under Section 3(6) was not supported by the evidence, and this ground failed also.