Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/407/02

Decision date

14 October 2002

Hearing Officer

Mr M Reynolds

Mark

ROCKFORD

Classes

18

Applicant

Terence Ball

Opponent

Rockport (Europe) BV

Opposition

Sections 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6): - Opposition failed.

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

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

Points Of Interest

• 1. See also BL O/408/02 which has been summarised in more detail and BL O/406/02.
• 2. A request to file additional evidence at the hearing about the applicant’s trading methods was allowed by the Hearing Officer.

Summary

These proceedings mirror the invalidity action taken by the present opponents against an identical registered mark owned by the present applicant in Class 25.In the proceedings under BL O/408/02 identical grounds were at issue and the conflict was between the same two marks as here, ROCKFORD and device and ROCKPORT.

In the proceedings under BL O/408/02 identical grounds were at issue and the conflict was between the same two marks as here, ROCKFORD and device and ROCKPORT.

In these proceedings the Hearing Officer found that even though identical goods were at issue under Section 5(2)(b) the marks were not similar and thus confusion of the public was unlikely. Opposition failed on this ground.

Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the opponents also complained about the applicant’s use of the name of American States as sub-brands which imitated their use of such names in a similar fashion. The Hearing Officer found that the opponents evidence was inconclusive at the relevant date and, in view of this finding under Section 5(2)(b) that the respective marks were not similar, he concluded that the opponents also failed on this ground.

Under Section 3(6) the opponents made a number of allegations about the applicants selection of ROCKFORD; an attempt to register ROCKFORT and their trading methods. However, the Hearing Officer considered that individually the opponents’ claims had insufficient weight; were not adequately substantiated and were inconclusive. Opposition failed on this ground.

Full decision O/407/02 79Kb