Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/438/99

Decision date

10 December 1999

Hearing Officer

Mr M Foley

Mark

CRISTALNAYA

Classes

16, 25, 33

Applicants

Richmond Distillers Ltd

Opponents

Plodimex Aussenhandelgesellshaft MBH

Opposition

Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4), 5(4)(a) and Section 3(6)

Result

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

Section 5(3) - Withdrawn

Section 5(4) - Withdrawn

Section 3(6) - Withdrawn.

Points Of Interest

• 1. Acquiescence is not the same as consent but it is a fact which can be taken into account in opposition proceedings.

Summary

The opponents based their opposition on their own registered marks STOLICHNAYA LIMON and STOLICHNAYA Russia Vodka in Class 33; on their parent company’s mark STOLICHNAYAOHRAN (Class 33) and marks owned by other parties namely KRISTELL (Class 32), CRYSTAL (Class 33) and CRISTAL (Class 33).

In relation to the latter mark, the applicants indicated that they had had contact with the proprietors and as a consequence had restricted their specification in Class 33 to spirits & vodka. While the opponents considered that acquiescence was not the same as consent the Hearing Officer considered that it was a matter which could be taken into account.

In relation to the opponents own marks the Hearing Officer refused to accept that they had a reputation (even though there might have been some use) and he therefore refused to accept that they had any separate reputation in the suffix NAYA which would lead to confusion with the applicants mark. This finding also applied to the mark owned by the parent company. Turning to the three CRYSTAL, CRISTAL & KRISTELL marks the H/O decided that, taking into account the respective goods; the respective marks; the fact that CRYSTAL is an ordinary English word and widely registered (in varying forms) for a wide range of goods, the three marks at issue were not confusingly similar to the mark applied for.

Full decision O/438/99 30Kb