For the whole decision click here: o36807
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the mark PLAVIX registered in Class 5 in respect of identical and similar goods as those of the applicant. The opponent also filed evidence of use in support of its opposition and to satisfy the “proof of use” provisions of Section 6A of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (as amended).
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks KLARYX and PLAVIX. While he noted that the respective marks had some letters in common and that IX and YX are similar phonetically, he concluded that overall the respective marks were not similar and that opposition thus failed.