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 >> BIG BITES (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2004] UKIntelP o20204 (27 April 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o20204.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o20204
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
BIG BITES (Trade Mark: Appointed Person) [2004] UKIntelP o20204 (27 April 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o20204
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/202/04
- Decision date
- 27 April 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr Geoffrey Hobbs QC
- Mark
- BIG BITES
- Classes
- 25, 42
- Applicant
- Renown Leisure Limited
- Opponent
- 7-Eleven Incorporated
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b). Appeal to the Appointed Person
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Appeal allowed.
Appeal to the Appointed Person - Opposition succeeded in respect of Class 42.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 11 November 2003 ( BL O/346/03) the Hearing Officer had concluded in relation to the opposition to the Class 42 application that the opponent's goods in Classes 29 and 30 were only marginally similar to the applicant's services in Class 42 and that, taking account of the descriptive nature of the opponent’s mark BIG BITES, there was little likelihood of confusion. Opposition thus failed.
On appeal the opponent argued that the Hearing Officer had equated the "Provision of food and drink" with the "Preparation of food and drink" and this was an error. The Appointed Person accepted that the specification applied for was wider in scope as compared to that considered by the Hearing Officer and he went on to compare the opponent’s goods with the applicants services. He concluded that they were similar and that as the respective marks were similar there was a likelihood of confusion. Opposition under Section 5(2)(b) thus succeeded.