Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/443/01

Decision date

5 October 2001

Hearing Officer

Mr D Landau

Mark

COMFIT

Classes

11

Applicant

SITECO Beleuchtungstechnik GmbH

Opponents

Whitecroft Lighting (Holdings) Limited

Opposition

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

Result

Section 3(6) - Opposition dismissed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

• Comparison of the marks comfit v COMFORT

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents’ registration of their mark COMFORT. The Hearing Officer found:- (i) the opponent had not established that reputation, recognition or goodwill resided in their earlier registration; (ii) the respective specifications encompassed identical or highly similar goods: (iii) there was a degree of visual similarity between the respective trade marks and there was a likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded, therefore and the Section 5(4)(a) objection failed. The Section 3(6) objection was dismissed as the opponents’ case was based on supposition, presumption and conjecture.

Full decision O/443/01 33Kb