IPO The opposition was based on the registrations and use of the opponents’ mark CLOSED. In view of the paucity of the evidence of use, the Hearing Officer confined his considerations of the matter to Section 5(2)(b)* and did not make a finding under Section 5(4)(a), which had been cited in the statement of grounds. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found a likelihood of confusion and the opposition succeeded accordingly.
Citations:
[2001] UKIntelP o26501
Links:
Intellectual Property
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.454240
