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 >> EVIAN FRUIT FUSION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o06207 (27 February 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o06207.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o06207, [2007] UKIntelP o6207
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
EVIAN FRUIT FUSION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o06207 (27 February 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o06207
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/062/07
- Decision date
- 27 February 2007
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- EVIAN FRUIT FUSION
- Classes
- 32
- Applicant
- Société Anonyme Des Eaux Minérales D’Evian
- Opponent
- Proctor & Gamble Company
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the mark FRUIT FUSIONS registered in Class 3 in respect of a range of hair care and skin care products. It also claimed use and a reputation in its mark but the evidence filed showed use of a number of marks on the product and there was little evidence to show that its mark FRUIT FUSIONS had acquired a distinct and separate reputation. The opponent also filed evidence to try and show that current trends and marketing have established a link between fruit preparations for consumption in Class 32 and fruit based products for the care of the hair and the skin.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer was not convinced about the claimed linkage between goods in Classes 3 and 32 and went on to find that the respective goods were not similar. In comparing he respective marks the Hearing Officer decided that they were not similar bearing in mind the low distinctive character of the common elements FRUIT FUSION and FRUIT FUSIONS. Opposition thus failed under Section 5(2)(b).
Opposition also failed under Section 5(3) because the Hearing Officer was not satisfied that they opponent had established a separate and distinct reputation in its mark. Nor did he accept that the evidence established that there was brand extension or a cross-over of trade in respect of Class 3 and Class 32 goods.