Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/092/98
Decision date
30 April 1998
Hearing Officer
Mr N Harkness
Mark
WATER KING
Classes
11
Applicant
Lifescience Products Ltd
Opponent
Kleiber (UK) Ltd
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful against the applicant’s word and device mark. Opposition failed against the applications word mark.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. See also decision under O/105/98 which related to cross-opposition proceedings.

Summary

The Opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark SKALE KING (stylised) and crown device in respect of identical goods to those of the applicant. The opponents commenced to use their mark about February 1993 and the applicants in September 1993. The opponents filed some trade evidence in support of their claim that the respective trade marks were confusingly similar but it is noteworthy that one of the opponents declarants also filed a declaration in support of the applicants in the context that he knows the applicants to be manufacturers and had assumed that the opponents had badged the applicants product with a "cloned" mark.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the goods at issue were identical and went on to compare the applicants logo mark with the opponents mark. The words SKALE and WATER are clearly non-distinctive in relation to water treatment apparatus; the word KING which appears in both marks is a surname and also somewhat laudatory and the device elements, while similar, were not identical. Taking account of the trade evidence and bearing in mind the presence of a similar logo in the respective marks the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were confusingly similar and that the opponents succeeded in their opposition to the applicants logo mark.

The Hearing Officer then compared the applicant,s word mark WATER KING with the opponents SKALE KING and device mark. He noted that the trade evidence suggesting similarity had all been in relation to the two logo marks and he decided that the absence of a logo from the applicant’s mark was sufficient to tip the balance against a finding of confusing similarity. The opponents failed in their opposition to the word mark solus.

Full decision O/092/98 PDF document43Kb