Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/001/05
Decision date
4 January 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
THINK PINK
Classes
14, 18, 28
Applicant
Cowley Designs Limited
Opponent
G B International SpA
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

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

Section 5(3): - Opposition dismissed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition dismissed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the goods; sports bags in Class 28 in conflict with bags generally, in Class 18.

Summary

The opposition was based on the mark THINK PINK and device, registered in Classes 25 and 28.

The opponent had filed only "the briefest evidence" relating to its trade. Hence the Hearing Officer quickly dismissed the objections which required such evidence, ie Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a). The matter was therefore reduced to Section 5(2)(b); and there could be no claim of an enhanced degree of distinctive character by reason of use.

Comparing the marks the Hearing Officer concluded that they were 'similar to a high degree'.

The application in suit specified, inter alia, "Bags none being adapted for use in rock/mountain climbing; evening bags; purses; umbrellas and parasols". The opponent sought the removal of "bags none being adapted for use in rock/mountain climbing; evening bags" which, they claimed were in conflict with the goods in their Class 28 specification, "Sporting articles (other than clothing) adapted for use in rock and/or mountain climbing".

In previous proceedings between the parties (see BL O/484/02 (PDF file 62 Kb)) the Hearing Officer had found that 'sporting articles' included bags adapted for or to convey sporting articles and that such goods clashed with bags generally. The attempted exclusion in this case did not remove that clash and the Hearing Officer therefore ruled that these should be removed from the applicant’s specification. There was no valid objection to the evening bags, however. Both sides achieved a measure of success, the Hearing Officer made no order as to costs.

Full decision O/001/05 PDF document104Kb