 |
[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 >> 1 PIN GOLF WHO WANTS TO BE 2ND (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o09201 (22 February 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o09201.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o9201, [2001] UKIntelP o09201 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o09201
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition succeeded.
Section 5(3) - Not decided
Section 5(4)(a) - Not decided
Sections 3(1), 3(3)(b), 3(4) & 3(6) - Opposition not pursued
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opposition based on opponent’s registration of the mark PING in Classes 18, 25 and 28. In dealing with the opponent’s case under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer accepted at the outset that identical goods were involved and that the opponent's mark possessed a reasonably high distinctive character, especially among the prospective customers, ie golfers. He went on to characterise the mark in suit as a composite mark consisting of the word PIN (of which the letter I is surmounted by a pennant containing the numeral 1) above the word GOLF, of which the letter O simulates a golf ball on a tee peg, and which surmounts the stylised legend "who wants to be second". In comparing the respective marks, he found no likelihood of confusion in a visual context, even though the words PIN GOLF were likely to be drawn out of the mark in suit. However, although he also identified significant conceptual differences, he concluded that the likelihood that the mark in suit would be described in aural use as a PIN GOLF mark meant that the respective marks would prove impossible to distinguish in aural use, leading to a likelihood of confusion in a significant part of the trade in golfers' clothing.
Opposition under Section 5(2)(b) was therefore upheld, and in the circumstances the Hearing Officer decided briefly that he did not need to consider the other cited grounds under Section 5.