This site uses cookies to help make it more useful and reliable. Our cookies page explains what they are, which ones we use, and how you can manage or remove them.

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/294/04
Decision date
29 September 2004
Hearing officer
Mr J MacGillivray
Mark
SWIPE GOLD
Classes
01, 05
Applicant
Syngenta Participations AG
Opponent
Homcare Service AB
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful in respect of Class 1. Failed in respect of Class 5.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. None

Summary

The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of registrations of the mark SWIPE in Classes 1 and 3 in respect of chemical preparations for application to glass and transparent surfaces to prevent misting and soaps and liquid cleaning preparations.

The applicant’s goods in Class 1 were "Chemicals used in agriculture, horticulture and forestry and manures" and in Class 5 "Preparations for destroying vermin; fungicides and herbicides". The applicant also owned a co-existing registration in Class 3 for the mark SWIPE in respect of "Herbicides" but no use of this mark was filed so this was merely "state of the Register" information.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer had little difficulty in deciding that the respective marks were closely similar since the word GOLD in this context was likely to be seen as laudatory or referring to goods of premium quality. Both parties made submissions about the closeness of the respective goods and the Hearing Officer went on to apply the usual tests to decide on similarity.

In relation to the Class 1 application the Hearing Officer decided that there was similarity of goods in respect of the applicant's agriculture and horticulture goods but not in relation to chemical for use in forestry or manures. As regards the Class 5 application the Hearing Officer concluded that these goods were not similar to the opponent’s goods in Class 3. As a result of the Hearing Officer’s conclusions the applicant was given a period of twenty eight days to restrict his specification to reflect the Hearing Officer’s findings. Opposition thus partially successful.

Full decision O/294/04 PDF document36Kb