Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/063/03

Decision date

4 March 2003

Hearing Officer

Mr G Salthouse

Mark

TERRACHILE

Classes

33

Applicant

Thierry’s Wine Services Limited

Opponent

Inversiones Cousino-Macul SA

Opposition

Sections 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(1)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

• 1. Comparison of the marks FINIS TERRAE v TERRACHILE.

Summary

The opponents were proprietors of the mark FINIS TERRAE, in Class 33.

The Hearing Officer dealt with the matter first under Section 5(2)(b). He noted that the goods were identical, but after considering the marks and all relevant factors, he came to the conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion.

The opponents had not filed evidence of use or goodwill; the marks were not similar, he had found; therefore the Hearing Officer concluded that the opposition failed under Section 5(4)(a) also.

Under Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) the Hearing Officer eventually concluded that consumers “faced with a bottle of wine called TERRACHILE (would) regard the name as a lexical invention within the meaning of the guidance in BABY-DRY, and view it as a trade mark”. These grounds failed accordingly.

Full decision O/063/03 28Kb