Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/016/02

Decision date

15 January 2002

Hearing Officer

Mr D Landau

Mark

ACLAV

Classes

05

Applicant

Grünenthal GmbH

Opponent

Ashbourne Pharmaceuticals Limited

Opposition

Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

• 1. The question as to how potentially similar marks should be treated in Class 5 was raised but the Hearing Officer decided that he should employ normal criteria in comparing the respective marks.

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of the mark Amiclav registered in Class 5 in respect of identical and similar goods to those of the applicant.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the only matter to be decided was a comparison of the respective marks Amiclav and Aclav. Both parties made claims as regards similarity or non-similarity as the case may be but neither filed evidence to support such claims. The Hearing Officer thus compared the marks visually, phonetically and conceptually and concluded that they were not confusingly similar. Taking a global view of the respective goods and respective marks he decided that there was no likelihood of confusion and thus opposition failed on this ground.

Full decision O/016/02 31Kb