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 >> CORDON BLANCO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o22903 (13 August 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o22903.html
Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o22903

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

CORDON BLANCO (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o22903 (13 August 2003)

For the whole decision click here: o22903

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/229/03
Decision date
13 August 2003
Hearing officer
Mr J MacGillivray
Mark
CORDON BLANCO
Classes
33
Applicant
Freixenet SA
Opponent
G H Mumm et Cie Societe Vinicole De Champagne Successeur
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.

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

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opposition was based on a number of 'CORDON' marks registered in Class 33, such as CORDON ROUGE, CORDON ROSE etc.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the opponents possessed a substantial reputation in their CORDON ROUGE mark in relation to champagne; the evidence relating to use of their other marks, however, did not demonstrate any entitlement to an enhanced penumbra of protection. The Hearing Officer was also unable to conclude from the evidence that they constituted a 'family of mark'’.

Assessing the similarity of the respective marks the Hearing Officer concluded that they shared an 'identical, distinctive and dominant' component, the word CORDON and accordingly there was significant visual and aural similarity. Conceptually, too, there was a strong similarity.

Overall, having considered the identicality of the goods and the scope for imperfect recollection, the Hearing Officer found a likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded accordingly.

The Hearing Officer made no finding under Section 5(4)(a) but considered that the opponents had no stronger case under that head.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o22903.html