Northern Europeans may grow sluggish in the summer sun but Alicante, epicentre of the Community trade mark, remains busy. The most recent batch of OHIM Opposition Division decisions posted on OHIM’s website includes Mobil Oil Corporation’s successful attack Olaf Quilitz’s attempt to register a device mark including the words MOBIL’S & FUN for goods in Classes 9 (software and electronic apparatus) and 12 (apparatus for locomotion), goods for which Mobil had already registered one or more MOBIL-based trade mark. Mobil alleged (among other grounds) similar marks/identical goods and a likelihood of confusion under Regulation 40/94, Art.8(1)(b), as well as Art.8(5), in that Quilitz’s application was seeking to take unfair advantage of the repute or distinctive character of MOBIL, a mark possessing quite a reputation.
The Opposition Division found for Mobil on likelihood of confusion, finding the marks visually, phonetically and (in Germany, Denmark and Sweden) conceptually similar. Sadly, having reached this conclusion, the Opposition Division then sat back and declared that, if MOBIL’S & FUN wasn’t registrable because of Art.8(1)(b), there was no need to consider the Art. 8(5) point. Says the IPKat, “Apart from disappointing those of us who are craving some really good decisions on how Art.8(5) actually works, the refusal to consider the second ground could have messy consequences if (as is unlikely) the Quilitz appealed the Art.8(1)(b) point successfully before the Board of Appeal. Where would that leave the unconsidered Art.8(5) point?”
For things to do in Alicante if you’re not there fore the trade marks click here, here or here
Mobil’s recipe for a longer life here
Chocolate Obsession recipe from Georgia’s only Mobil Five Star restaurant here
The Opposition Division found for Mobil on likelihood of confusion, finding the marks visually, phonetically and (in Germany, Denmark and Sweden) conceptually similar. Sadly, having reached this conclusion, the Opposition Division then sat back and declared that, if MOBIL’S & FUN wasn’t registrable because of Art.8(1)(b), there was no need to consider the Art. 8(5) point. Says the IPKat, “Apart from disappointing those of us who are craving some really good decisions on how Art.8(5) actually works, the refusal to consider the second ground could have messy consequences if (as is unlikely) the Quilitz appealed the Art.8(1)(b) point successfully before the Board of Appeal. Where would that leave the unconsidered Art.8(5) point?”
For things to do in Alicante if you’re not there fore the trade marks click here, here or here
Mobil’s recipe for a longer life here
Chocolate Obsession recipe from Georgia’s only Mobil Five Star restaurant here
UPWARDLY MOBIL
![<strong> UPWARDLY MOBIL</strong>]()
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html