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 >> WI -FI DEVICE WI-FI (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o29006 (16 October 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o29006.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o29006
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
WI-FI DEVICE WI-FI (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o29006 (16 October 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o29006
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/290/06
- Decision date
- 16 October 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr D Landau
- Mark
- WI-FI & DEVICE WI-FI
- Classes
- 09
- Applicant
- Wi-Fi Alliance
- Opponent
- Wilhelm Sihn Jr KG
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- The opponent appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 5 April 2007 (BL O/104/07) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The marks applied for in these proceedings are Certification Trade Marks but in the event nothing turns on that fact.
Both parties filed evidence, the opponent as to the nature of the respective goods, and the applicant attested to the fact that it has used its mark in the UK for some four years and there have been no instances of confusion.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer accepted that identical and similar goods were at issue. He also decided that the respective goods are specialised in nature and that purchasers would exercise care and consideration when purchasing such goods.
As regards the respective marks the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark of the opponent WISI and the stylised version of the WI-FI a device mark were not similar. Thus opposition failed against this mark. As regards the WISI and WI-FI marks the Hearing officer decided that there was a low level of similarity but bearing in mind the specialised nature of the products at issue and the care which would be taken in their purchase, he concluded that overall there was unlikely to be any confusion between the respective marks. Opposition thus failed in respect of this mark.