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 >> Packard Bell (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o21404 (19 July 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o21404.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o21404
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Packard Bell (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o21404 (19 July 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o21404
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/214/04
- Decision date
- 19 July 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- Packard Bell
- Classes
- 09, 16, 35, 37
- Applicant
- NEC Computers International BV
- Opponent
- Bell IP Holdings LLC
- Opposition
- Sections 5(1), 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b)
Result
Section 5(1) - Opposition Failed.
Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition Failed.
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition Failed.
Section 5(3) - Opposition Failed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition Failed.
Section 5(4)(b) - Opposition Failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
The opponent's opposition was based on its ownership of a Community registration for the mark BELL in Classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 in respect of goods and services which are the same and similar to the applicant's goods and services. The opponent also claimed use of its mark but the evidence filed was insufficient to show that its mark had acquired an enhanced level of distinctiveness or that the opponent had a reputation in the mark BELL in relation to the goods and services in its registration.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer accepted that identical and similar goods and services were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks. In so doing he took into account the fact that BELL is a well known dictionary word with a well known meaning and that it is a common surname. In any case in comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer decided that the two marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually different as the device element and the word PACKARD in the applicant's mark would not be overlooked. Overall he concluded that the respective marks were not similar and that the opposition on this ground failed.
As regards the other grounds, the opposition under Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(a) fell away because clearly the respective marks were not identical. The goods under Section 5(3), 5(4)(a) and 5(4)(b) also fell away because the opponent had little or no reputation in its mark and the lack of a reputation meant that these grounds must fail.