Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/241/03
- Decision date
- 20 August 2003
- Hearing Officer
- Dr W J Trott
- Mark
- EASY SHOPPER
- Classes
- 12
- Registered Proprietors
- Niagara Healthcare Plc
- Applicants for declaration of invalidity
- EasyGroup IP Licensing Limited
- Application for Invalidation
- Section 47(2) (Section 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a))
Result
Application for invalidation, Section 47(2), failed.
Points Of Interest
- 1. Family of marks.
- 2. Section 5(3); detriment or unfair advantage.
- 3. Comparison of goods/services.
Summary
The applicants were proprietors of a number of 'EASY' marks. The registration in suit was in respect of "Battery powered scooters for the elderly and the infirm; battery powered wheelchairs; invalid’s carriages and conveyances". Of the goods covered by the applicants' specifications the Hearing Officer found the following to be identical with or similar to the registered proprietors' goods:- rental and hire of vehicles (Class 39), vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land (Class 12); hire and rental of motor vehicles (Class 39); scooters, bicycles (Class 12) rental and hire of vehicles (Class 39); scooters, bicycles (Class 12). These were specified, respectively, in the registrations/applications of 'EASY JE'’ 'EASY'; 'EASYTECH'; 'EASYRENTACAR'; 'EASYJET.COM THE WEB'S FAVOURITE AIRLIN'’; 'EASYJET GIFT'’.
From the evidence, however, the Hearing Officer could not find that, at the relevant date the applicants possessed a 'family' of EASY marks.
The 'average consumer' in this case, he decided, was an ordinary member of the public who was interested in purchasing a vehicular mobility aid.
Turning to the similarity of the marks, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was some similarity between them. Taking each of the applicant'’ marks in turn, however, the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion with any of them. The grounds under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.
Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer eventually found, inter alia, that nothing in the registered proprietors' trade would be a detriment to the fame of the EASYJET name. This ground failed also.
Under Section 5(4)(a), the Hearing Officer did not believe that the public would readily accept that the applicants had moved into the 'focused and specific market' represented by the registered proprietors’ specification. This ground failed also.
Full decision O/241/03 
138Kb
