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 >> ENTERPRISE IG (series) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o10108 (9 April 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o10108.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o10108
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
ENTERPRISE IG (series) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o10108 (9 April 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o10108
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/101/08
- Decision date
- 9 April 2008
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- ENTERPRISE IG (series)
- Classes
- 35, 42
- Applicants
- Enterprise 1G Ltd
- Opponents
- IG Design SA
- Opposition
- Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 3(6): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- Comparison of the mark I.G.DESIGN v ENTERPRISE IG
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents' ‘CITY IG DESIGN’ registered in Class 42. They also alleged that the applicants included an ex-employee of theirs and they had applied in bad faith.
The Hearing Officer considered firstly the ground based on Section 3(6). Although the opponents had secured a victory in an infringement action in France against the applicants the Hearing Officer nevertheless concluded that their claims of bad faith was “entirely without merit” and he dismissed it.
Turning to the Section 5(2)(b) objection the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents’ use of their mark in France satisfied the Proof of Use requirements even though it had not been used in the UK; he did however decide that they did not qualify for enhanced protection by reason of reputation.
Having compared the marks and services specified the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion and the Section 5(2)(b) opposition failed.
The Section 5(4)(a) objection also failed and the evidence of reputation was insufficient to support an objection under Section 5(3). It also did not suggest unfair advantage or show detriment. The opposition therefore failed on all grounds.