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 >> SAKIRA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o20607 (23 July 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o20607.html
Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o20607
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SAKIRA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2007] UKIntelP o20607 (23 July 2007)
For the whole decision click here: o20607
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/206/07
- Decision date
- 23 July 2007
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Reynolds
- Mark
- SAKIRA
- Classes
- 05
- Applicant
- Merz Pharma GmbH & Co KGaA
- Opponent
- Intersante Gmbh
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful
Points Of Interest
- In its evidence the opponent referred to the fact that it had successfully opposed this applicant in France and Switzerland but the Hearing Officer was not influenced by such decisions. (Paragraph 31 refers).
Summary
The opponent owns the registered mark SALFIRA in respect of goods in Classes 3 and 10 and in respect of a range of goods in Class 5 which are identical and similar to the goods of the applicant. The opponent also filed evidence of use of its mark but this use related to goods in Class 3 and was not substantiated to any extent. Such use did not, therefore, impact on the Hearing Officer’s decision.
As identical goods are at issue in these proceedings the only matter for consideration by the Hearing Officer was a comparison of the respective marks SAKIRA and SALFIRA. The Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks have the letters SA IRA in common and that both are of similar length. There is thus some visual similarity. In looking at the construction and rhythm of the two words the Hearing Officer considered them to be phonetically similar. Also both marks are invented words with no conceptual meaning or allusive reference to the goods. The Hearing Officer went on to conclude that is a likelihood of confusion of the public if the respective marks are used on identical goods and that the opponent succeeded in its opposition under Section 5(2)(b).