Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/096/02

Decision date

27 February 2002

Hearing Officer

Mr M Reynolds

Mark

VERSALUX

Classes

19

Applicant

Visteon Corporation

Opponent

VKR Holdings A/S

Opposition

Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

• None

Summary

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of registrations for the mark VELUX in Class 19 in respect of the same and similar goods to those of the applicant. They filed outline details of use of their mark from 1945 onwards in respect primarily of windows, replacement glass etc but there was insufficient evidence provided to convince the Hearing Officer that the opponents mark had a reputation in relation to the claimed goods.

The applicant filed details of an earlier opposition dispute before the Korean Trade Mark Office and the decision by that Office had been that the respective marks were not similar. The Hearing Officer noted the decision but concluded that it could have no bearing on the dispute before the UK Office.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks VERSALUX and VELUX. He noted that both marks commenced with the letters VE and ended with the letters LUX but found that this was insufficient to make the marks similar. The respective marks were visually different being of unequal length; phonetically different in that one had three syllables whereas the other had only two and both would be seen as invented words. In conclusion, and taking imperfect recollection into account, the Hearing Officer decided that the respective marks were not confusingly similar and that there was little likelihood of confusion of the public. The opposition thus failed under Section 5(2)(b).

As the opponents had failed to substantiate their claimed reputation the Hearing Officer decided that there was no need to deal with the grounds under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) in detail since the opponents case failed at the outset.

Full decision O/096/02 107Kb