IPO The opposition was based on the opponents’ CTM ‘drunkenmunky’ registered in classes 25. The Hearing Officer found the marks ‘similar to a high degree’. However, despite submissions that there was ‘complementarity’ between clothing on the one hand and entertainment services, nightclubs etc on the other, and that they shared a common group of users, the Hearing Officer found no similarity in the goods/services.
The Section 5(2)(b) objection failed accordingly.
The evidence filed in support of the Section 5(3) objection referred only to use in the UK and did not establish a reputation in the Community. It did not in any case, establish a UK reputation to the requisite standard. This objection failed als
Citations:
[2007] UKIntelP o23607
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456752