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 >> CHOCO PUFFS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o25501 (11 June 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o25501.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o25501 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o25501
Result
Section 3(1)(b): - Opposition successful.
Section 3(1)(c): - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
[This was one of two oppositions to this application involving different opponents but raising essentially the same objections. They were heard on the same day; the parties’ representatives were the same in each case.] A preliminary point resulted in the admission of further evidence.
The Hearing Officer considered first the individual element of the mark in question and concluded:- ‘CHOCO’ is widely used as an indication of chocolate flavoured or chocolate coated products; "it is no less indicative of chocolate than the misspelling FROOT was of FRUIT in FROOT LOOPS trade marks [1998] RPC 240"; and "trade image has led the public to regard the word PUFFS as wholly descriptive of puffed wheat cereal products". He went on to conclude that "the totality is no more than the sum of its parts".
This brought the Hearing Officer to the main point in the applicants’ case which was that CHOCO PUFFS would be seen as a "brand extension" product; "a customer expectation arising from familiarity with the (well known) SUGAR PUFFS mark". The Hearing Officer concluded, however, that the common element was PUFFS, and he had earlier found that that was used in a wholly descriptive capacity both by the applicants and by other traders. He upheld the objections based on Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c).
