BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> COLLEGIATE (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o13401 (19 March 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o13401.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o13401 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o13401
Result
Section 3(6) - Opposition not pursued
Section 5(3) - Opposition not pursued
Section 56 - Opposition not pursued
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition succeeded in respect of COLEGIATE
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition not decided
Points Of Interest
Summary
Opposition based on opponent’s numerous registrations of the mark COLGATE (solus, and with added words and devices) in Classes 3 and 5. In dealing with the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) and applying the usual tests, the Hearing Officer confined himself to comparing the marks in suit and COLGATE (solus), which in his view provided the opponent with its best chance of success, the applicant having conceded identity or similarity of goods.
At the hearing, the opponent effectively conceded, the Hearing Officer concurring, that no risk of confusion arose in respect of the mark COLLEGIATE. He was also not persuaded that confusion would arise in respect of the mark COLLIGIATE, which in his view was likely to be seen as a misspelling of COLLEGIATE. However, he found a likelihood of confusion in respect of the mark COLEGIATE, whether stylised or not. Opposition therefore succeeded against the latter mark.
In the light of his findings under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer concluded briefly that the evidence would fail to support a more advantageous attack under Section 5(4)(a). The application was therefore allowed to proceed subject to deletion of the mark COLEGIATE.
