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 >> HEADRUSH CLOTHING (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2001] UKIntelP o50001 (8 November 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2001/o50001.html Cite as: [2001] UKIntelP o50001 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o50001
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents owned registrations for the mark HEAD and claimed extensive use of the mark in relation to clothing. The Hearing Officer considered the evidence filed to support such claims and decided that the opponents had an enhanced reputation in relation only to ski and tennis clothing.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks HEAD and HEADRUSH CLOTHING and device. Based on normal and fair use of both marks the Hearing Officer decided that there was little likelihood of confusion between the two marks. However, taking the opponents enhanced reputation into account in relation to ski and tennis clothing, he considered that there was a likelihood of confusion between the respective marks in relation to such goods. The Hearing Officer therefore proposed that the applicant restrict his specification by excluding from his specification "clothing for use in skiing and tennis" in order to avoid the conflict.
With regard to the ground under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer decided that he would reach the same decision as under Section 5(2)(b).
