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 >> DEVICE ONLY MARK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o29503 (1 October 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o29503.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o29503
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
DEVICE ONLY MARK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o29503 (1 October 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o29503
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/295/03
- Decision date
- 1 October 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- DEVICE ONLY MARK
- Classes
- 25
- Applicant
- CMR Industria E Commercio Ltda
- Opponent
- Liz Claiborne Inc
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.
Section 5(3) - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(4)(a) - No formal finding.
Points Of Interest
- 1. 'Family' of marks.
- 2. Comparison of the marks LIZ LIZWEAR v LIZ (stylised)
Summary
The opposition was based on registrations of the opponents' marks LIZ. LIZWEAR, LIZGOLF, LIZTEENS, LIZ CLAIBORNE etc. The goods were identical or closely similar. The matter therefore came down to an assessment of the marks. The Hearing Officer concentrated his attention on the opponents’ marks LIZWEAR and LIZ LIZWEAR, the latter being a convenient starting point as it included the word LIZ as "the visually dominant element supported by the word LIZWEAR".
The Hearing Officer concluded that notwithstanding the degree of stylisation in the applicants' mark it would be seen as the word LIZ, not the letters LZ as contended by the applicants. Whilst he did not accept that the opponents registrations constituted a 'family' of marks, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion. The Section 5(2)(b) objection succeeded.
The Section 5(3) ground could not be used by the opponents since the goods were identical/similar, and the ground had been pleaded as "in the alternative".
The Hearing Officer did not give detailed attention to the Section 5(4)(a) ground beyond remarking that the opponents would not be better placed under it than they were under Section 5(2)(b).