This is the second opposition matter in relation to the dispute between these parties. We reported the outcome of the first opposition here. An appeal was filed against that decision, but was stayed pending the outcome of this decision.

This matter was largely similar to the first opposition and despite a different Hearing Officer issuing this decision, the reasoning of the decisions are essentially the same.

In finding that the opponent had made its case under section 44, the Hearing Officer noted that the overall impression carried away by the respective consumers is the words ‘CAESAR’ and the goods, ‘tiles’ and ‘floor and wall coverings’, were closely related.

On the possibility of honest concurrent use under section 44(3), the Hearing Officer, as in the first opposition, noted that the evidence of pre-filing use by the application in relation to the goods at issue was minimal and, in fact, it often distanced itself from such use.

The section 44 ground was established and the application refused.

We will provide further updates on this as the appeals get underway.

To view the Office decision, click here.