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 >> FUN STATION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o29608 (30 October 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o29608.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o29608
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
FUN STATION (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o29608 (30 October 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o29608
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/296/08
- Decision date
- 30 October 2008
- Hearing officer
- Mr M Bryant
- Mark
- FUN STATION
- Classes
- 41
- Applicant
- James Leonard Miller
- Opponent
- Societe D’Exploitation Radio Chic
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b) & 56
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- There had been proceedings before OHIM involving these two parties and the opponent was successful. However, the Hearing Officer did not find this fact, on its own, persuasive.
Summary
The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the Community Trade Mark FUN RADIO & device covering a range of services in Class 41. It filed evidence of use in relation to radio broadcasting and some associated activities and taking account of the “proof of use” provisions, only such services were taken into account in these proceedings. The applicant’s services are “Entertainment provided by way of family amusement centres”.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found only a low level of similarity between the respective services and, in view of the descriptive nature of the word FUN, concluded that the respective marks were similar to only a small degree. He went on to decide that confusion was unlikely and that opposition failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground.
As regards the ground under Section 56 the Hearing Officer believed the opponent’s case was weak in view of his findings under Section 5(2)(b). Opposition also failed on this ground.