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 >> JAVA EXPRESS (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2004] UKIntelP o12604 (10 May 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o12604.html Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o12604 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o12604
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Appeal dismissed.
Section 5(4)(a) - Appeal dismissed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents appealed the Hearing Officer decisions of 26 June 2003 (BL O/180/03 and BL O/181/03). During the appeal period the opponents were declared bankrupt and the Appointed Person allowed a period of time for clarification but eventually decided to decide the appeal as nothing was forthcoming from the opponents’ representatives or successors (if any).
In their appeal the opponents had contended that the Hearing Officer had given insufficient weight to their use and reputation acquired, in assessing likely confusion with the marks in suit; that he had given insufficient weight to the similarity of EXPRESS and ESPRESSO in the respective marks and that his finding that JAVA was descriptive of a type and source of coffee was inconsistent with a finding that the word JAVA was non-distinctive.
The Appointed Person rejected all the opponents’ submissions. He reviewed the Hearing Officer’s decision and concluded that the Hearing Officer had identified the correct principles and carefully considered the evidence. He had made findings of fact as to the degree of distinctiveness of the earlier trade marks and applied the relevant principles properly in carrying out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. Appeal dismissed.
