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 >> Verifiedalarms (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o17206 (21 June 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o17206.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o17206
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Verifiedalarms (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o17206 (21 June 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o17206
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/172/06
- Decision date
- 21 June 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- Verifiedalarms
- Classes
- 45
- Applicant
- Christopher Berry
- Opponent
- Verisign Inc
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponent is the owner of a Community Trade Mark, registered in a range of Classes including Class 42, consisting of the word VERISIGN and device of a tick. This mark has an effective date of 8 May 2002 and this is the earlier trade mark as compared to the mark in suit. The opponent filed no evidence of use of its mark.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective services. The applicant’s specification covers “Monitoring of Security CCTV Systems in Class 45” whereas the opponent’s mark covers a wide range of services in Class 42 including in particular “Services concerned with the identification of the individual in order to permit transactions and/or secure communications via a computer system or network”. In the Hearing Officer’s view the nature of the respective services, their end users and method of use were all different and were not in competition with each other. He concluded that the respective services were not similar.
With regard to the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted the similarities in that both marks commenced with the letters VERI and in both cases the letter v incorporated a tick device. However, thereafter they were very different phonetically and different conceptually. Overall, taking into account the respective services, the Hearing Officer concluded that the public would not be confused and that the opposition failed.