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 >> THE DENTAL PRACTICE device of a crocodile (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o13807 (24 May 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o13807.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o13807
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
THE DENTAL PRACTICE device of a crocodile (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o13807 (24 May 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o13807
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/138/07
- Decision date
- 24 May 2007
- Hearing officer
- Mrs A Corbett
- Mark
- THE DENTAL PRACTICE & device of a crocodile
- Classes
- 44
- Applicants
- Dr Simon J Moore & Dr Timothy Rumney
- Opponent
- La Chemise Lacoste (SA)
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & Section 56
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- The opponent appealed the Section 5(2)(b) ground to the Appointed Person. In her decision dated 12 December 2004 (BL O/361/07) the Appointed Person upheld the Hearing Officer's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The opponent owns a number of marks consisting of a device of a crocodile and it filed evidence of use of its marks. The evidence indicated extensive use but it was poorly focussed in that marks were not identified or linked to particular goods or turnover. The Hearing Officer was unable to assume that any particular mark had an enhanced reputation because of the use made of it.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer decided that the opponent’s best case rested on its registration of a device of a crocodile covering services in Class 44 which included medical services. She concluded that such services included dentistry services, the applicants services, and therefore identical services were at issue. As regards the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted differences in the device elements but the main difference was the presence of the words THE DENTAL PRACTICE in the applicant's mark. Overall she concluded that the respective marks were not confusingly similar and that opposition failed under Section 5(2)(b).
Opposition also failed on the remaining grounds because the respective marks were not similar, the evidence of use was of only limited assistance and the activities of the two parties appeared to be very different.