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 POWERPUFF GIRLS (Series of two marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o15508 (4 June 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o15508.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o15508
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
THE POWERPUFF GIRLS (Series of two marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o15508 (4 June 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o15508
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/155/08
- Decision date
- 4 June 2008
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Bryant
- Mark
- THE POWERPUFF GIRLS (Series of two marks)
- Classes
- 44
- Applicant
- Katie Reynolds
- Opponents
- The Cartoon Network Inc
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- Comparison of the marks and the goods and services THE POWDERPUFF GIRLS and device v THE POWDERPUFF GIRLS. Overall, no likelihood of confusion.
Summary
The application was in respect of hairdressing and beauty treatment services in class 44. The opposition was based on a number of THE POWDERPUFF GIRLS marks registered in various classes, not including Class 44, but including goods in Class 3.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the average consumers for the respective goods/services were the same. He also concluded that there was “a degree of similarity between the respective goods and services, but that this similarity (was) on the low side”.
The marks had a low level of visual similarity but they were aurally very similar, he found. Conceptually the marks were not similar. In the result he found no likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2) failed.
Under Section 5(3) he found that the mere existence of a link did not support a conclusion that there would be detriment to the distinctive character of the opponent’s mark. This objection also failed.