For the whole decision click here: o17108
Result
Section 5(2)(b); opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on a number of ‘PARKER’ marks, registered in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 17 and 42. Some of the opponents’ marks were stylised but the Hearing Officer based his assessment on the view that they were essentially ‘PARKER’ marks.
There was identicality/similarity in most of the goods and services but having reviewed all the circumstances of the trade and the nature of the goods and services the Hearing Officer, on a global assessment found no likelihood of confusion.
There was a history of concurrent use but the Hearing Officer emphasised that he had reached his decision without taking account of what impact this might have had. He did however note that “whilst it is possible that there is undiscovered confusion, it is telling that the opponents have been content to allow the two mark to be used side by side without any apparent concern in this respect.”
The opposition failed.