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 >> PENGUIN/THE PENGUIN (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2005] UKIntelP o14405 (20 May 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o14405.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o14405 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o14405
Result
Section 5(2)(b): - Appeal dismissed. Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
Summary
In his decision dated 25 August 2004 (BL O/262/04) the Hearing Officer decided that the opponent had not filed sufficient evidence to support its grounds of opposition under Sections5(3) and 5(4)(a) and dismissed these grounds. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer decided that the respective goods "steam cleaning apparatus" and "air conditioning apparatus" were not similar and therefore the opponent also failed on this ground. The appeal to the Appointed Person related only to the Section 5(2)(b) ground.
The opponent had appealed on the basis that the Hearing Officer had not considered the inter-relationship between the respective marks and goods and the Appointed Person considered that this submission had merit. In his view the respective goods were not so dissimilar that it was unnecessary to compare the respective marks because both sets of goods were engineered products; could be sold through the same outlets and used by the same customers. The Appointed Person therefore concluded that the goods were somewhat similar though he noted that the opponent had filed no evidence on the point to assist the Hearing Officer.
As regards the respective marks PENGUIN and The Penguin & device (applicant’s marks) and PINGUINO 2000 & PINGUINO and device (opponent’s marks) the Appointed Person noted that there were some similarities but the applicant’s marks were clearly English marks whereas the opponent’s marks were likely to be seen as Italian. Overall the Appointed Person concluded that in the absence of evidence from the opponent as regards the similarity of the respective goods, that despite some similarity of goods and marks, the public were unlikely to be confused. Opposition on this ground failed and appeal dismissed
