Trade mark decision

BL Number: O/165/99
Decision date: 16 June 1999
Hearing Officer: Mr D Morgan
Mark: MIRGOFF
Classes: 33
Applicant: Daniel Martin Woods
Opponent: Heublein Inc
Opposition: Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 56

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - opposition successful

Section 5(3) - opposition dismissed

Section 56 - no formal finding

Points Of Interest

Comparison of marks: SMIRNOFF v MIRGOFF gave rise to a likelihood of confusion taking account of the visual and aural similarities and imperfect recollection.

Summary

The opponents cited their mark SMIRNOFF as the basis for their opposition. The Hearing Officer, taking into account the "visual and aural similarities of the respective marks and imperfect recollection" was of "the clear view that there (existed) a likelihood of confusion". The opposition therefore succeeded under Section 5(2)(b). The Section 5(3) objection was dismissed because the goods were identical or similar. He made no finding under Section 56.

Full decision O/165/99 18Kb