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 >> RIVERCLIFF (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o26806 (21 September 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o26806.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o26806
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
RIVERCLIFF (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o26806 (21 September 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o26806
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/268/06
- Decision date
- 21 September 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- RIVERCLIFF
- Classes
- 33
- Applicant
- Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd
- Opponent
- E & J Gallo Winery
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful. Section 5(3): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponent is the owner of the mark RIVERCREST registered in Class 33 in respect of alcoholic beverages (except beers). It also filed details of use of is mark and after considering the evidence the Hearing Officer determined that such use had been in relation to “still California wines”. Also while the use shown was satisfactory the Hearing Officer considered it unlikely that such use had enhanced the notoriety of its mark. The Hearing Officer accepted, however, that the mark RIVERCREST was a distinctive mark.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks RIVERCLIFF and RIVERCREST. He considered that they had visual and aural similarities and went on to find that the respective marks were similar and that the opponent succeeded on this ground.
As regards the ground under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer noted that use had extended over a relatively short period and, in relation to the goods at issue, had a limited market share. He therefore, concluded that the opponent did not have the necessary reputation to sustain its claims under Section 5(3) of the Act. Opposition failed on this ground.