The opposition was based on four registrations of a device mark which, the opponents claimed, consisted of the letters PC in stylised form. The opposition under Section 5(1) and (5(2)(a) failed automatically as the marks were not identical.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer thought that it was ‘far from certain that consumers would identify the letters ‘PC’ in the mark’. Neither did he accept that the public would automatically see the word (clear) as a descriptor and not as part of the mark. With all the factors considered he did not conclude that there existed a likelihood of confusion.
Citations:
[2002] UKIntelP o11102
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 15 October 2022; Ref: scu.455036
