IPO The application was based on registrations of the mark O2 and O2 in respect of mobile phones and telecommunications services. Having compared the respective marks the Hearing Officer found them to be ‘similar to a moderate degree’. A comparison or the goods/services and an overall assessment left the Hearing Officer with a finding of likelihood of confusion in respect of some, only, of the goods in Class 9 and none of the services in Class 42. The application under Section 5(2)(b) was successful therefore to that limited extent.
The Hearing Officer went on to find that the applicants had failed to establish a case under Section 5(3) in respect of the dissimilar goods and services.
In view of the partial success achieved by both sides the Hearing Officer made no award of costs.
Citations:
[2007] UKIntelP o14707, O/147/07
Links:
Intellectual Property
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.456695