If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
For the whole decision click here: o21903
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Section 56 - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents were proprietors of various registrations of the mark SHARP, in Class 9.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the goods and concluded that there was a "low to negligible degree of similarity between them". He went on to compare the marks.
In the absence of any evidence of consumer reactions to the marks and relying on his own reactions, the Hearing Officer found that the most immediate and natural interpretation was that the first element in the applicants' mark SHARP OWL was that it was used to qualify the second element OWL; SHARP on its own lent itself to a 'surnominal usage'. He eventually concluded that the opponents had not established a likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.
The Hearing Officer was doubtful that the opponents could succeed under any of the remaining grounds, given the differences in the marks and the goods, but the position would have to remain untested since the evidence before him did not establish the nature or extent of the reputation claimed.