If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
For the whole decision click here: o31606
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent is the owner of a registration for the mark GENERSYS in Classes 9, 11 and 42. Its principal activity appears to be in relation to solar energy whereas the applicant concentrates on wind, water, diesel etc types of power systems and it has excluded services relating to solar energy from its specification.
The opponent first commenced to use its GENERSYS mark in the UK in March 2001 and use has continued on an increasing scale since that date. Considerable sums have been spent promoting the mark on a national basis. It claims that the respective trade marks are similar and that similar goods and services are at issue.
The applicant also filed evidence of use. It commenced to use its mark in June 2000 in relation to more specialised and remote location contracts and it has spent little on promotion. However, by 2004/5 turnover had increased to some £248k per annum. The applicant submitted that the fields of activity of the two parties were different and that as far as it was aware there had only been one instance of confusion when one of the opponent’s customers had incorrectly made contact with the applicant.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective specifications (and not their current activities) and concluded that similar goods and services were at issue. Also he had no difficulty in concluding that the respective marks are confusingly similar since the word POWER SYSTEMS in the applicant’s mark would be seen as totally descriptive. While there had been a period of concurrent use the Hearing Officer considered that this period was too short to convince him that confusion between the parties was unlikely. Overall, therefore, the Hearing Officer found that the opponent was successful in its opposition under Section 5(2)(b).