Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
6 January 2004
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
09, 16, 38, 41, 42
BT Cellnet Limited
Midstream Technologies Inc
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents' opposition was based on their ownership of registrations for the marks MIDSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES and MIDSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES and device in a range of Classes encompassing identical and similar goods and services as those of the applicants. In his decision the Hearing Officer identified those goods and services of the applicants where he considered there was no similarity and therefore no grounds for objection.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the only matter to be decided was whether the respective marks were confusingly similar. As the opponents’ marks consisted of or incorporate the dictionary word MIDSTREAM he did not think there was any conceptual similarity to the applicants’ letter and word mark MSTREAM. Also the respective marks were visually and phonetically different. Overall the respective marks were not similar and opposition thus failed even in respect of identical goods and services.

Full decision O/002/04 PDF document75Kb