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 >> FUSION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o38303 (8 December 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o38303.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o38303
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FUSION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o38303 (8 December 2003)
For the whole decision click here: o38303
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/383/03
- Decision date
- 8 December 2003
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- FUSION
- Classes
- 20
- Applicant
- Kenro Limited
- Opponent
- Royal Doulton (UK) Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(1): 5(2)(a); 5(3) & 5(4)(a).
Result
Section 5(1): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2)(a): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the goods in Classes 20 and 21.
Summary
The opposition was based on registrations and use of the marks FUSION, registered in Classes 11, 21 and 24.
The Hearing Officer lost little time in dismissing the grounds under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a), as the evidence filed by the opponents was not strong enough to support them.
The goods were not identical and hence the Section 5(1) objection was also dismissed.
The Hearing Officer then turned to consider the objection under Section 5(2)(a). The marks being identical the matter came down to a comparison of the goods. It was agreed that the opponents’ best case lay in their registrations covering “ornamental articles, models, figurines, glassware, chinaware, pottery, porcelain and earthenware”. The application specified “frames of metal for photographs, prints or pictures”. Having compared these goods the Hearing Officer concluded that they were not similar and there was no likelihood of confusion. The opposition failed accordingly.