Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
18 January 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
A ATOM, (stylised) & device
Ascot (S&F) International Limited
Nike International Limited
Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3); 5(4)(a) & 56


Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of the marks; ‘tick’ or ‘swoosh’ mark v stylised cross-bar to letter A.


The basis of the opponents’ case was their claim that the stylised cross-bar of the letter A in the applicants’ mark made it similar to their own “tick” or “swoosh” device.

Following a very detailed assessment of the marks and all the relevant factors, and on a global appreciation, the Hearing officer concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion. The Section 5(2)(b) objection failed accordingly. This dissimilarity in the marks effectively decided the matter under Section 5(3), even taking account of the ‘massive’ reputation in the opponents’ mark. Likewise, the use of the mark applied for would not be a misrepresentation such as to result in passing-off and the Section 5(4)(a) objection failed also.

Under Section 56 the Hearing Officer concluded that whilst it was the case that the opponents’ made warranted protection as a well known mark, he could not see that the applicants’ marks had any potential to damage it. The opposition therefore failed on all the grounds on which it had been brought.

Full decision O/011/08 PDF document212Kb