The opposition was based on the opponents’ mark MEGS, registered in Class 25. The Hearing Officer found a ‘reasonably high degree of similarity’ in the marks and turned to a comparison of the goods and services. No written submissions had been made in support of the alleged similarity. The Hearing Officer could find no obvious basis for finding functional or aesthetic complementarity between the Class 16 and 25 goods. They were dissimilar. If there was any similarity between the Class 25 and 28 goods it would be ‘at a very low level’. In the result the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion
Citations:
[2007] UKIntelP o23707
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456761