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 >> CONDE DE LLADRO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o20503 (16 July 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o20503.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o20503

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

CONDE DE LLADRO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o20503 (16 July 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o20503

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/205/03
Decision date
16 July 2003
Hearing officer
Mr J MacGillivray
Mark
CONDE DE LLADRO
Classes
33
Applicant
Rosa Ma Lladro Castello
Opponent
Lladro Comercial SA
Opposition
Sections 3(6); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations (UK and Community Trade Mark) and use of their mark LLADRO and device, in Classes 16, 18, 21, 25 and 35.

The Hearing dealt firstly with the Section 5(3) ground. Comparing the marks, the Hearing Officer considered that, on a visual, aural and conceptual basis, they were similar. There was no dispute that the respective goods/services were not similar. The question therefore turned on the evidence relating to the opponents’ reputation. Despite the deficiencies in this, however, the Hearing Officer was able to find, "albeit with some hesitation", that the opponents had a reputation in Class 21 products. However, there was nothing to show that there would be detriment to this by registration. The Section 5(3) ground failed.

Turning to the Section 5(4)(a) ground, the Hearing Officer eventually found that the opponents had not discharged the onus of showing that misrepresentation would occur in relation to the goods specified. This ground also failed.

The allegation under Section 3(6) was not supported by the evidence, and this ground failed also.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o20503.html