Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
22 July 2004
Hearing Officer
Mr J MacGillivray
e eurodrive car rental
Eurodrive Car Rental Ltd
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
Sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) (* further grounds under Sections 5(1), 5(2)(a) and 5(4)(b) were cited in the pleadings but were withdrawn subsequently)


Section 5(2)b) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Family of marks.
  • 2. Comparison of 'e' mark v 'e*eurodrive car rental'.


The opposition was based on a number of marks consisting of a stylised letter 'e' on its own or in company with other matter, e.g. 'cars', 'enterprise', 'enterprise rent-a-car'. It was one of two closely related actions heard on the same day, the other is set out in BL O/218/04. The mark selected for the purposes of comparison however, consisted solely of a stylised letter 'e' in Class 39. Although the opponent claimed to have a family of 'e' marks the Hearing Officer did not consider that a reputation in them had been demonstrated and he did not consider that the argument had put the opponent in any stronger a position in this case "as a matter of law or practicality".

Identical services were involved and the Hearing Officer therefore proceeded to a comparison of the marks. Having made his comparison, however, and on a global assessment he concluded that the visual, aural and conceptual differences in the marks combined with the nature of the relevant market made confusion unlikely. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(3) also.

Full decision O/217/04 PDF document369Kb