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
15 June 2004
Hearing officer
Mr D Landau
16, 25
Closet Clothing Co Ltd
Lippincott AG
Section 5(2)(b)


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

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks CLOSED v CLOSET


The opposition, which was directed at the Class 25 specification only, was based on a registration of the mark CLOSED in Class 25.

The respective goods being identical, the Hearing Officer proceeded at once to a comparison of the marks.

The marks to be compared, he decided, were CLOSED v CLOSET, since the opponents could not be in any better a position in relation to the second mark.

Despite their common etymological root, the marks were conceptually different, he found. Phonetically they were different also. Given the importance of brands in the clothing trade and the consequent care exercised by customers in making their purchases the Hearing Officer, in the result, found the marks to be not similar. This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(2)(b), the inherently distinctive nature of the opponents’ mark notwithstanding.

Full decision O/175/04 PDF document36Kb