A fair point
A one-letter difference was not sufficient to squash the opposition, reports Julie Canet. O/550/19, HH HOTELS (Opposition), UK IPO, 19th September 2019
Manhattan Loft Corporation Ltd (the Applicant) sought to obtain registration of the trade mark HH HOTELS for services relating to temporary accommodation and food and drink in class 43. The application was opposed by NH Hotel Group SA (the Opponent) on the basis of s5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994. The Opponent relied on three earlier EU trade mark registrations, which are stylised versions of nH HOTELS, nH and nH HOTEL GROUP, all covering class 43.
Comparison
The Hearing Officer (HO) assessed the Opponent’s nH HOTELS mark, which was closest in terms of similarity to the Applicant’s mark.
The Applicant had accepted that the services were identical and/or highly similar. Applying the Meric principle, the HO noted that both parties had cover for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation and hotel services. Information and advisory services relating to those were deemed highly similar.
It was considered that all services were aimed at the general public, which would have a reasonable level of attention regarding accommodation and a medium degree of care regarding food and drink.
When comparing the marks, the HO indicated that HOTELS was a descriptive element and because the letters “nH” are larger and more prominent, they dominate the overall impression of the Opponent’s mark. On the other hand, in the Applicant’s mark the two elements contribute roughly equally to the overall impression.
Evidence
The Opponent had submitted, inter alia, TripAdvisor reviews, revenue figures and awards. The HO held that the turnover figures were unremarkable, the awards were industry awards and the TripAdvisor reviews were after the relevant date. Internet search results relating to hotel names had been attached to the Opponent’s written submissions in lieu of hearing instead of being filed as evidence. The HO ruled that this was unacceptable and this information was not taken into account.
Decision
The Applicant unsuccessfully referred to the stylisation and colour in the Opponent’s mark. The HO stated that the stylisation is unremarkable and reminded that notional and fair use covers both upper and lower case, and use in different colours.
In conclusion, the HO highlighted that the one-letter difference between the marks was not enough to mitigate the likelihood that the marks will be imperfectly recalled. The NH Hotel Group was successful in its opposition and the HH HOTELS application was refused.
This decision follows the Big Mac revocation case (EUIPO Cancellation No 14788C) in reminding that there will be close scrutiny of the nature and extent of evidence filed to demonstrate trade mark use. However, if here the HO did not need this evidence to decide there was a likelihood of confusion, the NH Hotel Group was not as lucky in its opposition against an NG HOTELS mark at EU level (EUIPO Opposition No 3059620, rejected).
Key points
- An undated witness statement renders evidence technically deficient
- Evidence should be filed as such and not attached to submissions in lieu of hearing
- Notional and fair use covers use of word marks in both upper and lower case, and in different colours
More case comments:
Go ask Alice
Naomi Jenkins explains how the Court answered key questions. [2024] EWHC 3256 (IPEC), Alice Ltd v Photogram Ltd and others, High Court.
Banana blues
Désirée Fields outlines why some shape and colour combinations require compelling evidence of acquired distinctiveness. T-426/23, Chiquita Brands LLC v EUIPO, General Court.
Fishing for a reaction
Anne Greatorex catches up with the Court’s latest free-speech challenge. [2024] EWHC 2892 (Ch), Samherji HF v Oddur Fridriksson, High Court.
Aldi faces bitter loss
This decision may be sweet relief for those fighting lookalikes, believes Richard May. [2025] EWCA Civ 5, Thatchers Cider Company Ltd v Aldi Stores Ltd, Court of Appeal.
Author
-
Julie Canet
UK Trade Mark Attorney, Marks & Clerk LLP