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 >> LEOVIT (Trade Mark: Inter Partes) [2006] UKIntelP o30206 (23 October 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o30206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o30206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o30206
Result
Section 47(2)(a) based on Section 5(2)(b): Application successful in respect of Class 5 and a range of goods in Class 30.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The applicant in these proceedings is the owner of two marks registered in respect of goods in Class 5. The marks are LEO and LEO RED.
The registered proprietor did not respond when sent a copy of the application and the applicant was asked justify its application. It filed submissions to the effect that the respective trade marks are confusingly similar and that identical and similar goods are at issue.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer considered the respective specifications and concluded that while identical and similar goods were at issue, some goods in Class 30 and those in Class 29 were not similar. Also there was no similarity with the services in Class 35.
The Hearing Officer then compared the respective marks and noted that LEO is the distinctive element in all the marks and that VIT in the registered mark and RED is one of the applicant’s mark are not particularly distinctive. While the respective marks might not be directly confused the public were likely to assume that the respective marks were associated and thus be deceived. Overall, therefore, there was the likelihood of confusion and the application succeeded in respect of all of Class 5 and a range of goods in Class 30.
