The opposition was based on the mark LYPSYL registered in Classes 3 and 5. The goods were ‘very closely similar’ in the view of the Hearing Officer. The matter came down therefore to an assessment of the marks which, the Hearing Officer decided, were ‘invented or fancy words’. On a global appreciation, however, he did not consider that there was a likelihood of confusion. The objections under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly. This effectively decided the fate of the Section 5(4)(a) objection also, to which, however the Hearing Officer did not give separate consideration.
The applicants’ submissions in relation to costs reflecting a delay which had to some extent involved the Registry were, however, not a matter for the Hearing Officer to rule on.
Judges:
Mr M Reynolds
Citations:
2291900, [2003] UKIntelP o35903
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.455761