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 >> it intelligent transport (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o08104 (25 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o08104.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o8104, [2004] UKIntelP o08104
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
it intelligent transport (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o08104 (25 March 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o08104
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/081/04
- Decision date
- 25 March 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- it intelligent transport
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant
- Vetatech Limited
- Opponent
- Mastercard International Incorporated
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(a); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
5(2)(a) - Opposition failed
5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
5(3) - Opposition failed
5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the marks : device of overlapping coloured circles v overlapping coloured circles with letters on them.
- 2. Costs in proceedings before the Registrar : litigants in person.
Summary
The opposition was based on a number (36 in all) of registrations consisting of devices of interlocking circles, with or without the word MASTER CARD. The marks applied for comprised the letters i and t, each set on a background of interlocking coloured circles.
The Hearing Officer quickly dismissed the Section 5(2)(a) objection; it was "scarcely credible that the average consumer would regard (the differences) as so insignificant that they (might) go unnoticed".
Under Section 5(2)(b) the comparison of the goods disclosed that the respective specifications encompassed the same goods. After a careful comparison of the marks the Hearing Officer concluded that they were similar "to a small degree only". On a global view the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion.
Given the gulf between the opponents’ services and the applicants' goods taken in conjunction with the net effect of the similarities and differences between the marks, the Hearing Officer could find no basis on which the opponents could succeed under Section 5(3).
In the light of these findings the Hearing Officer could see no circumstances in which the opponents could establish a misrepresentation likely to lead to damage. The Section 5(4)(a) objection failed accordingly.
The award of costs reflected the unnecessary trouble the applicants had been put to in having to consider irrelevant evidence and the fact that they had represented themselves.