||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 214 (Dec)
Alan Steinfeld QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court
||George Hamer (instructed by Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw) for the applicant.
||Michael Edenborough (instructed by Medyckyj & Co) for the respondent.
||14 December 2006
Trade mark - Opposition to registration - Confusion - Evidence of parallel trading - Application to register in various classes trade mark FIORELLI - Application opposed on ground that mark confusingly similar to mark FIORUCCI - Both marks used in fashion or designer goods market - Hearing officer upholding opposition - Hearing officer failing to take into account evidence of parallel trading - Whether hearing officer erring - , s 5(2)(b) .
The evidence of parallel trading in the two marks in what was substantially the same market was a highly important factor which the hearing officer should have taken into account. Had he taken that into account, the conclusion which he would have reached was that there was not such similarity between the two marks as to give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public within the meaning of s5(2)(b) of the .
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary