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/299/04
Decision date
29 September 2004
Hearing officer
Mr J MacGillivray
Mark
OZARK TRIAL
Applicant
Wal-Mart Stores Inc
Opponent
Ozark - London Limited
Opposition
Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the goods: ‘furniture’ same as 'furniture specially adapted for camping'.
  • 2. Comparison of the marks OZARK v OZARK TRAIL

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponent's marks OZARK and OZARK with device of a wild boar. The Hearing Officer considered the matter first under Section 5(2)(b), which was not directed against the goods in Classes 4, 6, 9 or 17, and which in Class 22 was directed solely against "hammocks and tents". It was conceded that the evidence of use did not justify a wider penumbra of protection.

After a detailed consideration of the goods in issue the Hearing Officer found a number to be closely similar and others to be similar.

There was similarity in the marks, and on a global appreciation there was a likelihood of confusion where the marks were to be used on certain goods. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded in respect of those goods.

The opponent's case under Section 5(4)(a) was no stronger than that under Section 5(2)(b). The evidence did not support the allegation of bad faith and the opposition on this ground failed accordingly.

Full decision O/299/04 PDF document73Kb