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 >> CSGROUP (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2008] UKIntelP o21008 (21 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o21008.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o21008 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o21008
Result
Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful.
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the mark CS COMMUNICATIONS & SYSTEMS and device registered in a range of Classes including 9, 38 and 41.
The applicant admitted in its counterstatement that the respective goods and services were identical and/or similar. It also filed details of use of its mark, claiming extensive turnover, particular in the latter few years leading up to date of application. However, the evidence showed that the applicant had used the names Computer Software Limited, Computer Software Group Limited and Computer Software Group Plc. Additionally it also used the designations SCL, CS Group and CSG in the period from 1999 onwards. Thus the turnover figures provided related to the group as a whole and not solely to the mark in suit CS Group and device.
The second strand of the applicant’s defence was a claim that the letters CS are a commonly used acronym for computer services, computer software or communication services. The applicant filed some evidence from the internet and other databases in an effort to substantiate this claim.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted the applicant’s admission that identical and similar goods and services were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks. As the letters CS are the dominant element in the respective marks the Hearing Officer had little difficulty in concluding that the marks are similar. Additionally he was not convinced that the letters CS were as descriptive as claimed by the applicant. The Hearing Officer went on to find the opponent successful in its opposition under Section 5(2)(b).
