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
O/064/04
Decision date
9 March 2004
Hearing officer
Mr J MacGillivray
Mark
TIME4
Classes
09, 38
Applicant
Business Environment Time4 Ltd
Opponent
Time Group Limited
Opposition
Section 5(2)(b)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. None

Summary

The opponent's opposition was based on a number of registrations of the mark TIME and geometric device and variations thereof in Class 9. The applicants accepted that identical goods were at issue in Class 9 and that the respective marks had the word TIME in common. However, they argued that this word was non-distinctive for the goods at issue. They also submitted that the goods in the opponent's registration were not similar to the services listed in their Class 38 application.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the opponent's computer goods in Class 9 with the applicant’s internet and database communications services and concluded that they were very similar. He also noted that in respect of the applicant's Class 9 application, identical goods were at issue.

The Hearing Officer then went on to compare the respective marks TIME and device and TIME4. While he accepted that for certain goods the word TIME might lack distinctiveness, this was not the case for such goods as computer hardware or indeed for the services listed in class 38. As regards the opponent’s mark the presence of the numeral 4 might be perceived as fourth generation, fourth series or fourth option. In any case comparing the marks as wholes the presence of the dominant word TIME meant that the respective marks were visually, aurally and conceptually similar. This being the case it was therefore likely that the public might believe that the goods and services in question came from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings. Opposition thus succeeded on this ground.

Full decision O/064/04 PDF document77Kb