Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
10 January 2003
Hearing Officer
Mrs A Corbett
09, 16, 25
Christopher Paul Saunders & David Paul House T/A
LA City
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 mark LA CITY in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25. This opposition concerned only Classes 9 and 25 of the applicants application.

After comparing the respective specifications the Hearing Officer was satisfied that the respective goods in Classes 9 and 25 were identical. In comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted that the applicants mark was a composite one consisting of a number of elements, only one of which was the word CITY. While the opponents mark also contained the word CITY the Hearing Officer noted that this was the only area of similarity and that compared as wholes the respective marks were very different and not likely to be confused. Even taking into account that identical goods were at issue the Hearing Officer decided that there was no likelihood of confusion and that opposition thus failed under Section 5(2)(b).

Full decision O/012/03 PDF document86Kb