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 >> CANTINA MEXICANA (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2003] UKIntelP o40403 (22 December 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2003/o40403.html Cite as: [2003] UKIntelP o40403 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o40403
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.
Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition was based essentially on their ownership of registrations for the marks LA MEXICANA and LA MEXICANA and device in respect of identical and similar goods as those of the applicants. The opponents also filed evidence of use but this evidence was not well focused or documented and the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponents had an enhanced level of distinctiveness in their marks.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer decided that the opponents best case rested on their LA MEXICANA registration which, translated, means "The Mexican Women". The Hearing Officer was doubtful that this meaning would be obvious to consumers in the UK. Also as the opponents' goods are all qualified as "all originating from Mexico or made to Mexican recipes or being in Mexican style", it was likely that the mark would be taken to allude to the Mexican theme of the goods. In comparison it was likely that the words CANTINA in the applicants' mark might be seen as meaning "Canteen" or as an invented word being used with the descriptive word MEXICANA. Overall, therefore, the respective marks were different visually, phonetically and conceptually and the Hearing Officer concluded that confusion was unlikely. If the respective device elements were taken into account this was even more unlikely. Opposition thus failed on this ground.
Opposition also failed under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a) because the respective marks were not similar and the evidence filed in the proceedings was not persuasive.
