Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
12 January 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr J MacGillivray
18, 25
The Vintage Clothing Company Limited
William John Dickinson, Anthony Frederick Richardson, Simon Dickie & Gary Thorneycroft t/a Pod Trademarks Partnership
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


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

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks POP (stylised) v Pod (stylised)


The opposition was based on a Community Trade Mark registration of the mark “POD” in Classes 18 and 25. On the evidence filed the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents’ mark, “on a balance of its reputation and inherent nature (was) fully distinctive and deserving of a wide penumbra of protection”.

The goods being identical the Hearing Officer proceeded to a comparison of the marks. These he found to be visually different and likely to be readily distinguished in visual use, and in aural use also. The goods are usually purchased with a reasonable degree of care. On a global appreciation the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion and the Section 5(2)(b) objection failed accordingly.

This absence of a likelihood of confusion effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) as the necessary misrepresentation would not occur.

Full decision O/011/05 PDF document49Kb