IPO (i) Comparison of the goods; ‘While ‘medicated’ goods within Class 5 are likely to be ones that fall within the definition of ‘medicinal product’ in Section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968, this is not necessarily so.’
(ii) Proof of Use Regulation
(iii) See also BL O/225/07
At first instance (see BL O/225/07) the Hearing Officer had found the opposition successful under Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3). The applicant appealed to the Appointed Person, contending:- (i) the Hearing Officer had wrongly assessed the opponents evidence of use; (ii) was wrong to find more similarities than differences in the goods and (iii) wrong to concluded that the conceptual similarities the marks outweighed the differences. Having reviewed the Hearing Officer’s decision the Appointed Person found that although he had indeed been wrong in one aspect of his proof of use findings this did not materially affect the validity of his overall decision. The appeal was dismissed.
Judges:
Mr Richard Arnold QC
Citations:
2392932, [2008] UKIntelP o07008
Links:
Citing:
See Also – Witchcraft (Trade Mark: Opposition) IPO 9-Aug-2007
IPO Trade Mark: Opposition – The application was in respect of ‘Eau de toilette, perfume, deodorant’. The opposition was based on registrations of a number of WITCH marks including WITCH DOCTOR and WITCH STIK.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456986
