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 >> TIGERMARKET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o37304 (21 December 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o37304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o37304
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
TIGERMARKET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o37304 (21 December 2004)
For the whole decision click here: o37304
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/373/04
- Decision date
- 21 December 2004
- Hearing officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- TIGERMARKET
- Classes
- 39, 42
- Applicant
- Exxon Corporation
- Opponent
- Kellogg Company and Kellogg Marketing & Sales Co (UK) Ltd
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of marks consisting of ‘cartoon’ tigers.
Summary
The opposition was based on a number of registrations of “cartoon tiger” marks, in Classes 9, 28 and 30. Taking first the objection under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective goods/services were not similar or, if they were , the similarity was slight; there was some similarity in the marks in that both were 'cartoon like' tiger devices; the relevant customer was the public at large. Overall, he found no likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.
Under Section 5(4)(a), the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents had not shown that misrepresentation would occur in relation to the services specified. This ground of opposition failed also.
Finally, under Section 5(3), the Hearing Officer was of the view that the opponents’ reputation was in relation to breakfast cereals. It was not obvious that they would be damaged in any way by use of the mark applied for in relation to the services specified. It was up to them to demonstrate that such damage would occur, and they had not done so.