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 >> THINK PINK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o00105 (4 January 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o00105.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o00105, [2005] UKIntelP o105
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
THINK PINK (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o00105 (4 January 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o00105
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/001/05
- Decision date
- 4 January 2005
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- THINK PINK
- Classes
- 14, 18, 28
- Applicant
- Cowley Designs Limited
- Opponent
- G B International SpA
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful.
Section 5(3): - Opposition dismissed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition dismissed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the goods; sports bags in Class 28 in conflict with bags generally, in Class 18.
Summary
The opposition was based on the mark THINK PINK and device, registered in Classes 25 and 28.
The opponent had filed only "the briefest evidence" relating to its trade. Hence the Hearing Officer quickly dismissed the objections which required such evidence, ie Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a). The matter was therefore reduced to Section 5(2)(b); and there could be no claim of an enhanced degree of distinctive character by reason of use.
Comparing the marks the Hearing Officer concluded that they were 'similar to a high degree'.
The application in suit specified, inter alia, "Bags none being adapted for use in rock/mountain climbing; evening bags; purses; umbrellas and parasols". The opponent sought the removal of "bags none being adapted for use in rock/mountain climbing; evening bags" which, they claimed were in conflict with the goods in their Class 28 specification, "Sporting articles (other than clothing) adapted for use in rock and/or mountain climbing".
In previous proceedings between the parties (see BL O/484/02 (PDF file 62 Kb)) the Hearing Officer had found that 'sporting articles' included bags adapted for or to convey sporting articles and that such goods clashed with bags generally. The attempted exclusion in this case did not remove that clash and the Hearing Officer therefore ruled that these should be removed from the applicant’s specification. There was no valid objection to the evening bags, however. Both sides achieved a measure of success, the Hearing Officer made no order as to costs.