IPO Opposition based on opponent’s various registrations (Community and UK) of a TWIN CHEFS device mark in Classes 29, 30 and 32. In regard to opposition under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer accepted that identical goods and services were involved under the respective marks, and that the opponent’s mark had a reasonably high distinctive character, especially among customers in the catering trade. He therefore proceeded to compare the respective marks, but in applying the usual authorities he concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion in a visual context. In his view, while both marks contained devices of two chefs, the respective stylised representations were very different and the differences would survive imperfect recollection.
Finding also no risk of aural confusion, or any conceptual basis for confusion (the use of chef devices being relatively common, and the opponent having failed to establish that the device of two chefs per se was distinctive of its goods and services), he therefore dismissed opposition on that ground.
Opposition under Section 5(4)(a) was also dismissed, briefly, the Hearing Officer finding no greater risk of misrepresentation, given the opponent’s relatively limited goodwill under its mark.
Judges:
Mr J MacGillivray
Citations:
[2001] UKIntelP o18601
Links:
Statutes:
Trade Marks Act 1994 3(1)(b) 3(1)(c) 3(6) 5(2)(b) 5(4)(a) 56
Citing:
See Also – Pizza Pizza (Trade Mark: Opposition) O/187/01 IPO 19-Apr-2001
IPO Opposition based on opponent’s registration of a TWIN CHEF device mark in Class 30. The opposition related to the same application under consideration in SRIS O/186/01, and the opponent relied on largely the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.454191