Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/269/04
Decision date
11 August 2004
Hearing officer
Professor Ruth Annand
Mark
GALILEO
Classes
35, 42
Applicants/Appellants
Galileo Brand Architecture Limited
Opponents/Respondents
Galileo International Technology LLC
Appeal to the Appointed Person against the decision of the Registrar’s Hearing Officer in opposition proceedings.

Result

Appeal against Hearing Officer’s findings under Section 5(1) failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Section 5(1): "overlapping specifications satisfy the test for identical goods or services ………. "There is no necessity for such specifications to co-extend.
  • 2. Section 5(1) : "Confusion is not a requirement for Section 5(1)".

Summary

At first instance (see BL O/045/04) the Hearing Officer had allowed the application to proceed in respect of the Class 42 services but had found the opponents successful under Section 5(1) in respect of some of the remainder in Class 35. The applicants appealed against this latter finding. The issue raised by the appeal was whether, for identicality to exist under Section 5(1), it was sufficient for there to be an overlap in the goods/services, or must they be co-extensive. The appellants also contested the Hearing Officer’s finding that the ‘pairs’ of services identified were in fact identical; the applicants’ services related to a travel technology company, those of the opponents related to an architecture company.

The Appointed Person found no requirement that specifications had to co-extend for the purposes of Section 5(1). The Hearing Officer had considered notional, normal and fair use across the width of the specifications. Confusion was not a requirement for Section 5(1).

The appeal failed.

Full decision O/269/04 PDF document32Kb