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!



BAILII [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 >> K (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49901 (12 November 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o49901.html
Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o49901

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


K (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o49901 (12 November 2001)

For the whole decision click here: o49901

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/499/01
Decision date
12 November 2001
Hearing officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
K
Classes
09
Applicant
Inline Management Ltd
Opponent
Brandid Ltd
Opposition
Sections 5(1); 5(2)(a); 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(1) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents' Community Trade Mark application for registration of a stylised letter K, which claimed priority from an earlier UK application, since abandoned. After some delay the opponents eventually provided evidence in support of the priority claim. As the marks were nearly (but not quite) identical the Hearing Officer decided that the proper basis for opposition was Section 5(2)(b). In this he followed the Appointed Person’s decision in BAYWATCH (BL O/051/01). The fact that the underlying UK application had since lapsed did not affect the Community Trade Mark priority claim (see Article 29(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 of 20 December 1993). The Hearing Officer therefore concluded that the opponents' Community Trade Mark application took priority, was in respect of a similar mark and goods which in some cases were identical. The opposition therefore succeeded under Section 5(2)(b).

The Hearing Officer reduced the costs awarded, in view of the opponents' delay in supplying evidence of priority.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o49901.html