Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Elia International Limited

Under Section 3(1)(a) the Hearing Officer decided that this ground had been confused with a claim to ownership of the mark in suit under Section 5 and that it had no merit. Opposition dismissed Under Section 3(6) – bad faith – the opponent complained about the vague wording and breadth of the applicant’s specification but filed no evidence to support this ground. Opposition dismissed. The ground under Section 5(1) was dismissed because, as the respective goods were in different Classes, they could not be identical. The essential ground of opposition was under Section 5(2)(b) and as the respective marks were identical the Hearing Officer carefully compared the list of goods in the respective specifications. He considered that the applicant’s specification contained a number of goods which were similar to the opponent’s goods and that the application could only proceed if such goods were excluded. A period of time was allowed for the applicant to request the necessary restriction.