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 >> ALLIMAX (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2002] UKIntelP o18202 (29 April 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2002/o18202.html Cite as: [2002] UKIntelP o18202 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o18202
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a Community registration for the mark ALMAX in Class 5 for “a special pharmaceutical product used for neutralizing gastric hyperacidity”. The applicants specification covered the following goods; “Compositions for medicinal purposes containing substances obtained from plants, vitamins combinations, minerals, amino acids, enzymes and herbal preparations”. In its counterstatement the applicants stated that the exact goods traded under the mark was a food supplement incorporating garlic and allicin and thus the respective goods were not similar.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer stated that he must compare the respective goods as set down in the two specifications. After applying the usual tests the Hearing concluded that the respective goods were similar and went on to compare the marks ALMAX and ALLIMAX. He considered that both marks would be viewed as invented words and that phonetically the only difference between the two marks was the presence of the letter “I” in the applicants mark. As this was a very small difference which could be lost in speech the marks must be considered to be very similar. In an overall context, therefore there was a likelihood of confusion of the public and the opponents were therefore successful in their opposition.
In the light of information in the counterstatement and submissions at the hearing about the exact nature of the applicants goods, the Hearing Officer indicated that if the applicants specification was restricted to “garlic supplements, all being compositions for medicinal purposes for the heart and blood circulation” the application would be allowed to proceed.
