Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/152/98
Decision date
17 July 1998
Hearing Officer
Dr W J Trott
Mark
MENTHO PLUS ARCOR
Classes
30
Applicants
Arcor S.A.I.C.
Opponents
Van Melle Nederland BV
Opposition
Section 3(2) & 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 3(3) - opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • Descriptive elements in marks.

Summary

The Hearing Officer speculated that the Section 3(2) objection (which refers to shapes) may have been intended to be a reference to Section 3(3), for which in any event he could see no justification. This ground was therefore dismissed. Turning to Section 5(2)(b), he found that the goods at issue were identical. After reviewing the evidence relating to these and other marks he returned to a comparison of the marks at issue, MENTOS v MENTHO PLUS ACOR . He could see no obvious similarity between these marks, and considered that MENTHO was probably a descriptive element in the mark. If so, it would be undesirable to prevent the applicant from incorporating such an element in the mark.

In any event, he saw no likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed.

Full decision O/152/98 PDF document30Kb