Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
11 January 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc
Terence Cole
Sections3(1)(c); 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(1)(c) - Opposition failed

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None in this case, but see how, in BL O/008/02, these marks were considered to be not confusingly similar by reason of the words added to one of them.


The Hearing Officer dealt first with the objection under Section 5(2)(b), which was based on a device mark also in the form of a percent symbol having human features added. He decided that the opponent’s Class 36 services were similar to those specified in the application. The ‘visual and conceptual’ similarities of the marks were such that there existed a likelihood of confusion, he found. The Section 5(2)(b) opposition succeeded accordingly. Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer was unable to find from the evidence that the opponents had a reputation in the mark in respect of similar or dissimilar services or that there would be any detriment to the opponent or to his trade marks.

Under Section 5(4)(a) the opponent had failed to demonstrate that he had any goodwill in his mark prior to the filing date of the application in suit.

Under Section 3(1)(c), the Hearing Officer noted that the opponent had not supported his allegation with evidence; he was not prepared to speculate on the opponent’s intentions under this head, and he dismissed the objection accordingly. Similarly, under Section 3(6), he found the opponent’s allegation to be unsupported by evidence or argument. This ground also failed, therefore.

Full decision O/009/02 PDF document106Kb