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 >> EASY FLEX (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o26803 (27 August 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o26803.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o26803
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
EASY FLEX (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o26803 (27 August 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o26803
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/268/03
- Decision date
- 27 August 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- EASY FLEX
- Classes
- 36
- Applicant
- Bristol & West Plc
- Opponent
- EasyGroup IP Licensing Limited
- Opposition:
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See also BL O/269/03 (EASYLIFE) where the same parties were involved in invalidity proceedings.
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on a number of prior registrations for the marks EASYJET, EASYEXTRAS, EASYVALUE and EASYMONEY together with a community trade mark application for the mark EASY (advertised but not yet registered). The opponents also claimed and proved use of their EASYJET mark in relation to air travel services but there was little evidence of any use of the other marks; EASYEXTRAS in Class 16 and EASYVALUE and EASYMONEY in relation to financial and insurance services.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted the opponent's reputation in their EASYJET mark and went on to compare the specification of that mark with the services of the mark in suit. He concluded that there was a degree of similarity in relation to some of the services claimed. In relation to the marks EASYVALUE and EASYMONEY identical and similar services were at issue. In comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer gave weight to the fact that EASY is not a distinctive element and went on to conclude that the respective marks were not similar. In comparing the opponent's mark EASY with EASYFLEX the Hearing Officer again referred to the fact that EASY lacked distinctive character before deciding that these marks were not similar. Overall there was no likelihood of confusion and opposition failed on this ground.
The opponents also failed in their ground under Section 5(3) since the only mark with a reputation EASYJET had been found not to be similar to EASYFLEX by the Hearing Officer under Section 5(2)(b).
Under Section 5(4)(a) – Passing Off – the opponents also relied on their mark EASYJET. As the fields of activity were different; the signs were not similar and taking account of the non-distinctive nature of the common element EASY, the Hearing Officer had no difficulty in deciding that this ground of opposition also failed.