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 >> ALCHEMY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o09702 (27 February 2002)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o09702.html
Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o9702, [2002] UKIntelP o09702

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


ALCHEMY (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o09702 (27 February 2002)

For the whole decision click here: o09702

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/097/02
Decision date
27 February 2002
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
ALCHEMY
Classes
25
Applicant
Ruth Allford & Natalie Stratos
Opponent
The Alchemy Carta Limited
Opposition
Sections 5(1); 5(2)(a) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 5(1): - Opposition successful.

Section 5(2)(a): - Opposition successful.

Section 5(4)(a): - No formal finding.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents' own registration of the mark ALCHEMY, in Class 25. The applicants had launched a revocation action against this registration and sought, at a very late stage, to consolidate this with the opposition proceedings. After a review of the arguments and submissions the Hearing Officer rejected the application for consolidation. He went on to consider the matter under Section 5(1). Here he found that the marks were identical and the goods likewise. The opposition succeeded under that Section therefore, but he went on to consider the matter under Section 5(2)(a), in relation "to those items which might not be considered identical ....." Here, too, he found the opponents successful. He went on to consider the claim of honest concurrent use; however the use claimed was insufficient to avoid a likelihood of confusion, he decided.

The Hearing Officer did not go on to consider the matter under Section 5(4)(a).



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o09702.html