For the whole decision click here: o17106
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on the mark NUTRAMENT registered in respect of “milk based beverages; all included in Class 29”. The clash alleged was with “pharmaceuticals, dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food for babies, food and beverages which are adapted for medical purposes in Class 5’’.
Comparing the marks NUTRAMAN v NUTRAMENT the Hearing Officer concluded that there was “a low degree of similarity” between them. Having compared the goods, however and the evidence of reputation the Hearing Officer concluded on a global assessment that there was no likelihood of confusion. The Section 5(2)(b) ground failed accordingly.
The evidence of reputation failed to establish a case under Section 5(3).
The Section 5(4)(a) objection likewise failed.