BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> BAYWATCH (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o40099 (12 November 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o40099.html
Cite as: [1999] UKIntelP o40099

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


BAYWATCH (Trade Mark: Opposition) [1999] UKIntelP o40099 (12 November 1999)

For the whole decision click here: o40099

Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/400/99
Decision date
12 November 1999
Hearing officer
Mr A James
Mark
BAYWATCH
Classes
42
Applicants
Gananath Wimalal Ediriwira
Opponents
The Baywatch Production Company
Opposition
Section 5(2), 5(3), 5(4), 32(3) and 3(6)

Result

Section 5(2) - opposition successful

Section 5(3) - no need to decide

Section 5(4) - no need to decide

Section 32(3) and 3(6) - opposition successful

Points Of Interest

Summary

The opponents own a registration for the mark BAYWATCH in Class 30 covering a range of foodstuffs. It is also the name of a well known television programme which was first shown in the UK in 1992 and the opponent has licensees in the UK who sell a range of goods such as sunglasses, magazines, clothing, chocolate Easter eggs etc under the mark. They have prospective restaurant licensees.

Applicant is the owner of the company Bay Watch Restaurants Ltd. Had approached the opponents about possible consent after he coined the mark.

Survey evidence filed by the opponents to show that a significant proportion of those approached associated the mark BAYWATCH for restaurants, with the opponents.

Hearing Officer concluded that mark distinctive in relation to goods in Class 30 and that foodstuffs and restaurant services are very similar. Also applicants reason for adopting mark not feasible. Confusion likely.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/1999/o40099.html