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 >> e everybody everywhere (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o13705 (18 May 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o13705.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o13705
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
e everybody everywhere (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o13705 (18 May 2005)
For the whole decision click here: o13705
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/137/05
- Decision date
- 18 May 2005
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- e everybody everywhere
- Classes
- 09, 16, 36, 39, 43
- Applicant
- Emerald Global Limited
- Opponent
- Enterprise Rent-A-Car
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3); 5(4)(a) & 56
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Section 56: - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the marks: letter ‘E’ stylised v letter ‘E’ stylised, plus ‘everybody everywhere’.
Summary
Initially the opponent cited a number of its registrations as bases for the opposition but subsequently accepted that its best case arose from its registration of a stylised letter ‘E’ in Classes 12, 36 & 39. The opposition was also withdrawn in respect of the applicant’s Class 9 and Class 16 specifications.
The Hearing Officer compared the respective services and found a degree of similarity. Comparing the marks, however, the Hearing Officer found that whilst both consisted of or contained a large stylised letter ‘E’, they could not be regarded as similar. On a global assessment he found no likelihood of confusion and the opposition failed accordingly.
The evidence of use, reputation and goodwill did not support the opponent’s case under Section 5(3) and this together with the absence of misrepresentation also decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a). Neither could the evidence support a claim to possession of a well known mark; the Section 56 objection failed accordingly