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 >> SPIRIT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o34008 (23 December 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o34008.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o34008
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SPIRIT (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o34008 (23 December 2008)
For the whole decision click here: o34008
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/340/08
- Decision date
- 23 December 2008
- Hearing officer
- Mr O Morris
- Mark
- SPIRIT
- Classes
- 03
- Applicant
- The Boots Company PLC
- Opponent
- Spirig Pharma AG
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b)
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. See Hearing Officer’s decision dated 14 May 2008 ( BL O/138/08)
- 2. See Appointed Person’s decision dated 12 September 2008 ( BL O/290/08)
Summary
The Registry’s original decision was issued on 14 May 2008 (BL O/138/08). On appeal to the Appointed Person it was remitted to the Registrar for a new decision by a different Hearing Officer because certain documents filed by the opponent had not reached the official file when the original decision was made (see Appointed Person’s decision dated 12 September 2008) (BL O/290/08).
The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the mark SPIRIG registered in class 3 in respect of identical and similar goods as those of the applicant.
The Hearing Officer carried out a careful comparison of the marks SPIRIT and SPIRIG and concluded that they were similar both visually and aurally to a moderate degree. However, he considered this similarity was offset to some extent because the marks are very different. Conceptually the mark SPIRIT is an English word with its own well known meaning, whereas SPIRIG would be seen as an invented word with no meaning. Overall the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were not so similar that the public would be confused as to the origin of the respective goods.