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 >> MERLIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o18104 (24 June 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o18104.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o18104
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
MERLIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o18104 (24 June 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o18104
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/181/04
- Decision date
- 24 June 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- MERLIN
- Classes
- 36
- Applicant
- SVM Asset Management Limited
- Opponent
- Merlin Biosciences Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(1); 5(2)(a) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(1) - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(4)(a) Opposition partially successful.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Evidence; Comparison of goods/services: “Where there are services or goods whose nature is not readily understood or known, an opponent needs to bring in evidence in relation to them.
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations, in Classes 35 and 36, and use of their mark MERLIN.
Dealing first with the opposition under Section 5(1) the Hearing Officer found some of the services specified in the application to be identical with those in the opponents’ registration. The opposition under Section 5(1) succeeded accordingly in respect of those services.
The Hearing Officer’s consideration of the matter under Section 5(2)(a), required a detailed analysis of the respective services. The evidence which could have helped in this, however was 'noticeable by its absence'; in this case it was not simply a matter of 'buns versus bread'. In the result the Hearing Officer found some of the services to be similar and he concluded that there existed a likelihood of confusion in respect of those services.
Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer again found for the opponents in respect of some of the services specified. In view of the limited nature of the opponents' success however the Hearing Officer made an award of costs in favour of the applicants.