For the whole decision click here: o35306
Result
Section 5(2)(b); opposition successful for the most part. Section 5(3); opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition (which was not directed at all of the goods in the application) was based on the opponents’ mark AMORA.
The evidence of use, provided by the opponents, established a reputation in one, only, of the member states of the EU (not the UK); This was not sufficient for the purposes of Section 5(3) ruled the Hearing Officer. Even if it did, it could not establish that a reputation for its mark in France could damage its reputation in the UK, if it was unknown there.
Having compared the goods and the marks, and on an overall assessment, the Hearing Officer concluded that the opposition should succeed in respect of some of the goods specified in the application.
The (reduced) order of costs reflected the fact that although largely successful, much of the opponents’ evidence was not relevant. Also, a hearing in this case had not really been needed.