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 >> HYDRO CROP (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o33201 (3 August 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o33201.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o33201 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o33201
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful in relation to specific goods in Class 1.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration of the mark HYDRO and device in Class 1 and the use of that mark in relation to a range of fertilizers. Sales were significant and it was accepted that the opponents had a reputation in relation to fertilizers. In their evidence and at the hearing the opponents opposition was narrowed down to essentially the applicants Class 1 application which included fertilizers and Class 31.
With regard to the Class 1 application the Hearing Officer accepted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks HYDROCROP and HYDRO and device. In view of the descriptive nature of the word CROP when used in relation to goods for use in agriculture the Hearing Officer concluded that the marks were confusingly similar in the context of identical goods (fertilizers in Class 1) but not in the context of other goods such as plants and bulbs (Class 31). Application allowed to proceed for a restricted specification in Class 1 (excluding fertilizers) and as advertised for other classes.
