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 >> YAKULT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o05104 (10 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o05104.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o5104, [2004] UKIntelP o05104
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
YAKULT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o05104 (10 March 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o05104
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/051/04
- Decision date
- 10 March 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- YAKULT
- Classes
- 29, 30, 32
- Applicant
- Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha
- Opponent
- Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 3(1)(b), 3(2)(b) & 5(2)
Result
Section 3(1)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 3(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(2): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See associated cases BL O/050/04, BL O/052/04 & BL O/053/04.
Summary
The applicant claimed that the shape of their container was distinctive and both parties filed evidence in relation to this claim. The matter was decided in associated proceedings under BL O/050/04 where the Hearing Officer found that the shape of the container was not distinctive.
Under Section 3(1)(b) the Hearing Officer considered the totality of the mark applied for and as the word YAKULT is distinctive and appears prominently on the container, he decided that the mark as a whole was distinctive.
Under Section 3(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the mark did not consist exclusively of the device of a container; it also incorporated the distinctive work YAKULT. Thus the opposition under this head must fail.
The objection under Section 5(2)(b) related to the opponent’s marks which consisted of the word VITAGEN and device of a similarly shaped container. In view of his decision under BL O/053/04 the Hearing Officer saw no need to consider this ground as the opponent accepted that they could not succeed in the light of the decision under BL O/053/04.