Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/053/07
- Decision date
- 20 February 2007
- Hearing Officer
- Mrs A Corbett
- Mark
- the future is sheer...... the future is sheer (series of 2 marks)
- Classes
- 20, 24
- Applicant
- Kingfisher Blinds & Curtains Limited
- Opponent
- L B Plastics Limited
- Opposition
- Sections 5(1), 5(2)(a), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(1): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(a): Opposition failed. Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Not considered
Points Of Interest
- See also BL O/052/07
Summary
This decision is very similar to that issued under BL O/052/07 where the same parties and somewhat similar marks were involved.
In these proceedings the opponent relied upon a number of registered marks including the mark SHEER registered in classes 6, 17, 19 and 32
It also owned the marks SHEERFRAME, SHEERGRIP, SHEERLOCK, SHEERSHADE and SHEERFLOW registered in various classes such as 6, 17, 19 and 22. The opponent filed details of use of this latter group of marks, and particularly of the mark SHEERFRAME which indicated extensive turnover in relation to fabricated windows and doors and parts therefore.
The Hearing Officer dismissed the grounds of opposition under Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(a) because the respective marks were not identical or near identical.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer determined that some of the respective goods were similar and went on to compare marks. He considered that the opponent’s best case rested on its SHEER registration and this mark was compared with the mark in suit. In comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted that the element SHEER was descriptive in relation to some of the applicant’s goods and, therefore, the distinctiveness of the mark in suit rested in the combination. Thus while the opponent’s mark was an element of the applicant’s mark, the marks must be compared as wholes. The Hearing Officer considered both marks to be somewhat descriptive and also to be conceptually different. She concluded, therefore, that there was no likelihood of confusion and that the opposition
failed under Section 5(2)(b).
In view of her decision under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer did not consider the ground under Section 5(4)(a).
Full decision O/053/07 
112Kb
