Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/186/01
Decision date
19 April 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr J MacGillivray
Mark
PIZZA PIZZA
Classes
25, 29, 30, 35, 39, 42
Applicant
Pizza Pizza Ltd
Opponent
Brake Bros Foodservice Ltd
Opposition
Sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c), 3(6), 5(2)(b), 5(4)(a) & 56

Result

Section 3(1)(b) & (c): - Opposition not pursued. Section 3(6): - Opposition not pursued. Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed. Section 56: - Opposition not pursued. Section 3(6): - Opposition not pursued. Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed. Section 56: - Opposition not pursued. Section 3(6): - Opposition not pursued. Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed. Section 56: - Opposition not pursued.

Section 3(6): - Opposition not pursued.

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Section 56: - Opposition not pursued.

Points Of Interest

  • See SRIS O/187/01 (pdf file 46Kb)- co-pending opposition to same application by same opponent.

Summary

Opposition based on opponent's various registrations (Community and UK) of a TWIN CHEFS device mark in Classes 29, 30 and 32. In regard to opposition under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer accepted that identical goods and services were involved under the respective marks, and that the opponent’s mark had a reasonably high distinctive character, especially among customers in the catering trade. He therefore proceeded to compare the respective marks, but in applying the usual authorities he concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion in a visual context. In his view, while both marks contained devices of two chefs, the respective stylised representations were very different and the differences would survive imperfect recollection.

Finding also no risk of aural confusion, or any conceptual basis for confusion (the use of chef devices being relatively common, and the opponent having failed to establish that the device of two chefs per se was distinctive of its goods and services), he therefore dismissed opposition on that ground.

Opposition under Section 5(4)(a) was also dismissed, briefly, the Hearing Officer finding no greater risk of misrepresentation, given the opponent's relatively limited goodwill under its mark.

Full decision O/186/01 PDF document51Kb