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 >> VITAGEN BEVERAGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o05304 (10 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o05304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o5304, [2004] UKIntelP o05304
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
VITAGEN BEVERAGE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o05304 (10 March 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o05304
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/053/04
- Decision date
- 10 March 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- VITAGEN BEVERAGE
- Classes
- 29, 30, 32
- Applicant
- Malaysia Dairy Industries Pte Ltd
- Opponent
- Kabushiki Kaisha Yakult Honsha
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6): - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. See associated cases BL O/050/04, BL O/051/04 and BL O/052/04.
Summary
The opponent’s ground of opposition under Section 5(2)(b) was based on an earlier application for registration of a similar shaped container as that of the applicant. In associated opposition proceedings the Hearing Officer held that the container mark was not distinctive and that it had not acquired a distinctive character. Opposition by this applicant thus succeeded ( BL O/050/04).
In these proceedings, and for the same reasons, the Hearing Officer again held that the opponent’s container shape was not distinctive and went on to compare the device of a container with the mark VITAGEN BEVERAGE and with a similar shaped container bearing the mark BEVERAGE VITAGEN; it being common ground that identical and similar goods were at issue. As the dominant and distinctive element in the respective marks was the words VITAGEN BEVERAGE the Hearing Officer concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion of the public. Opposition thus failed under Section 5(2)(b).
The opponent’s objection under Section 3(6) was on the basis that the applicant had no intention of using their mark in respect of the goods claimed. The Hearing Officer examined the evidence filed by the applicant and was satisfied that there was an intention to use the mark in suit in relation to “milk and beverages having a milk base”. There was no evidence in support of other goods in Class 29 such as eggs and dairy products at large nor was there any committed intention to use the mark at issue in relation to goods in Classes 30 and 32. The opposition was thus found to be successful in respect of all goods other than “milk and beverages having a milk base”.