Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
6 January 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
08, 09, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 35
Polo/Laurent Company LP
Malhotra Shaving Products Ltd
Sections 5(1) & 5(2)(b)


Section 5(1) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark SPORT in Classes 3, 8 and 21 and the opposition relented to only some of the applicants goods in their Classes 8 and 21. There was no opposition to the other Classes.

Under Section 5(1) the Hearing Officer had no difficulty in determining that the respective marks were not identical and that the opposition on that ground must fail.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer established that identical and similar goods were within the respective Classes 8 and 21 and went on to compare the respective marks SPORT and RLX POLO SPORT. While the opponents' mark SPORT appeared within the applicants mark the Hearing Officer decided that compared as wholes the respective marks were very different. Adopting the approach of the Appointed Person in the 10 ROYAL BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB trade mark case where that mark was opposed by the owners of the mark POLO, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion of the public and that the Opposition on this ground must fail.

Full decision O/006/03 PDF document191Kb