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 >> DARKER THAN BLUE (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o28806 (12 October 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o28806.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o28806
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
DARKER THAN BLUE (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o28806 (12 October 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o28806
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/288/06
- Decision date
- 12 October 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- DARKER THAN BLUE
- Classes
- 03, 18, 25, 28
- Applicant for Invalidation
- Hugo Boss Trade Marks Management GmbH & Co KG
- Registered Proprietor
- Darkerthanblue UK Limited
- Invalidation
- Section 47(2)(a) based on Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 47(2)(a) based on Section 5(2)(b): Invalidation application failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The applicant in these proceedings is the owner of the registered mark DARK BLUE in Class 3 in respect of the same and similar goods as those of the registered proprietor in its Class 3 registration.
The applicant filed as evidence, the results of internet searches in an effort to show that its mark is well known. The registered proprietor filed evidence to the effect that the term “darker than blue” is often used in connection with “black music”. It also filed internet evidence to show that the terms Deep Blue, Light Blue, Umbro Blue, Polo Blue etc are marks incorporating the word BLUE and in use in relation to men’s toiletries.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer established that identical and similar goods were at issue in the respective Class 3 specifications and went on to compare the respective marks. At the outset the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark of the applicant DARK BLUE had little distinctive character. He also concluded that while the marks had some similarities overall they were not confusingly similar and that the application for invalidation failed.