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 >> AQUAHYDROX Aquahydrox (Series of 2) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o02608 (4 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o02608.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o02608, [2008] UKIntelP o2608
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
AQUAHYDROX Aquahydrox (Series of 2) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o02608 (4 February 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o02608
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/026/08
- Decision date
- 4 February 2008
- Hearing officer
- Ms L Adams
- Mark
- AQUAHYDROX Aquahydrox (Series of 2)
- Classes
- 01, 05
- Applicant
- R S Hygiene Limited
- Opponent
- Hydro-X International A/S
- Opposition
- Section 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- None
Summary
The opponent’s registered mark HYDROX (stylised) was on the Register of Trade Marks for more than five years prior to the date of publication of the mark in suit (3 February 2006). It was therefore required to prove use of its mark in relation to the goods covered by its registration viz “extracts, additives and chemical preparations to prevent and remove scale in steam and heating installations”.
The opponent filed evidence of use of its mark but on close examination the Hearing Officer decided that use was not proved in relation to the mark as registered and use of HYDRO-X could not be accepted as an alternative form of the registered mark.
The above finding effectively decided the opposition but the Hearing Officer went on to consider the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) on the basis that “the proof of use provisions” had been satisfied. She compared the respective goods in detail and concluded that they were not similar. As regards the respective marks HYDROX and AQUAHYDROX the Hearing Officer accepted that there was some conceptual and visual similarity and that they were aurally similar. Overall, however, as the respective goods were not similar the Hearing Officer concluded that there would not be any likelihood of confusion of the public as regards origin. Opposition thus failed.