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 >> KELLING’S ADVOCAAT PRODUCE OF HOLLAND MADE FROM FRESH GRADE ‘A’ EGGS PRODUCED FOR H. KEELING CO RED DUSTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o01606 (17 January 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o01606.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o1606, [2006] UKIntelP o01606
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
KELLING’S ADVOCAAT PRODUCE OF HOLLAND MADE FROM FRESH GRADE ‘A’ EGGS PRODUCED FOR H. KEELING CO RED DUSTER (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o01606 (17 January 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o01606
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/016/06
- Decision date
- 17 January 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr C Bowen
- Mark
- KELLING’S ADVOCAAT PRODUCE OF HOLLAND MADE FROM FRESH GRADE ‘A’ EGGS PRODUCED FOR H. KEELING & CO RED DUSTER
- Classes
- 33
- Applicant
- House of Townend Limited
- Opponent
- JMV Jose Maria Vieira
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. None
Summary
This opposition was based on the ownership by the opponent of the mark FEELINGS in respect of identical goods as those of the applicant. The opponent also filed some evidence as regards marks containing the string of letters "eelings" and pointed to the fact that the applicant had not filed any evidence of use to substantiate the claim made in its counterstatement that it had used its mark for many years.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and that in comparing the respective marks the prominent element in the applicant's mark was the word KEELING'S. In comparing the respective marks FEELINGS and KEELING'S the Hearing Officer accepted that there was some similarity in the respective marks but the difference in the initial letters was significant and the marks were conceptually different. Overall there was a low level of similarity and the fact that alcoholic beverages were the goods at issue did not impact on the likelihood of confusion. Opposition failed.