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 >> QUARTZ (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o09004 (17 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o09004.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o9004, [2004] UKIntelP o09004
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
QUARTZ (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o09004 (17 March 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o09004
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/090/04
- Decision date
- 17 March 2004
- Hearing officer
- Professor Ruth Annand
- Mark
- QUARTZ
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant
- Apple Computer Inc
- Opponent
- TKS-Teknosoft SA
- Opposition
- Sections 5(1) & 5(2)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition successful
.. - Appeal dismissed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 16 June 2003 ( BL O/160/03) the Hearing Officer had upheld the opposition under Section 5(2)(a). The applicant appealed to the Appointed Person claiming that the Hearing Officer had decided that the respective QUARTZ marks were identical when this was not the case, and that the respective goods were different.
The Appointed Person carefully considered the Hearing Officer’s decision, the evidence before her and the submissions made by Counsel. As regards the respective marks the Appointed Person agreed with the Hearing Officer that the differences in the respective QUARTZ marks were so marginal that they were likely to be seen by the public as identical so in these proceedings they should be so treated.
As regards the respective goods the Appointed Person noted that the Hearing Officer had distinguished each party’s goods and had understood their function. She therefore agreed with the Hearing Officer’s finding that the respective goods were similar and that his decision in favour of the opponent should stand.
The applicant offered to amend their specification in order to try and overcome the opposition. The Appointed Person refused the request because it was too late in the proceedings to allow such an amendment. In any case the amendment proposed widened the existing specification and could not be allowed. Appeal dismissed.