This site uses cookies to help make it more useful and reliable. Our cookies page explains what they are, which ones we use, and how you can manage or remove them.

Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
23 January 2004
Hearing officer
Mr J MacGillivray
14, 16, 18
Silas & Maria Limited
Silmar SPA
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks SILMAR v SILAS


The opposition was based on the mark SILMAR registered in Class 14, and was directed at the Class 14 specification. The goods in Class 14 of the application were found by the Hearing Officer to be both identical and similar to the goods in the opponent’s registrations. Not without 'some hesitation' the Hearing Officer found the marks would be distinguished visually. In oral use too he found them distinguishable. There was no conceptual similarity. In the result, having taken account of all relevant factors the Hearing Officer did not find a likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) also.

Full decision O/021/04 PDF document39Kb