Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/219/03

Decision date

31 July 2003

Hearing Officer

Mr M Reynolds

Mark

SHARP OWL THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SOLUTION

Classes

09

Applicant

Foundation Systems Limited

Opponent

Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

Opposition

Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3); 5(4)(a) & 56

Result

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

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

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

Section 56 - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

• 1. Comparison of the goods; software, operating v applications; "a higher level term that embraces two items does not make them identical or even similar".

Summary

The opponents were proprietors of various registrations of the mark SHARP, in Class 9.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the goods and concluded that there was a "low to negligible degree of similarity between them". He went on to compare the marks.

In the absence of any evidence of consumer reactions to the marks and relying on his own reactions, the Hearing Officer found that the most immediate and natural interpretation was that the first element in the applicants' mark SHARP OWL was that it was used to qualify the second element OWL; SHARP on its own lent itself to a 'surnominal usage'. He eventually concluded that the opponents had not established a likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

The Hearing Officer was doubtful that the opponents could succeed under any of the remaining grounds, given the differences in the marks and the goods, but the position would have to remain untested since the evidence before him did not establish the nature or extent of the reputation claimed.

Full decision O/219/03 88Kb