Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
9 January 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
03, 08
Mr Majid Yousefi Moridani
Virgin Enterprises Limited
Sections 3(1)(a), 3(1)(b), 3(6), 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) and (b) and Section 55


Sections 3(1)(a) & (b) - Opposition failed

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Sections 5(4)(a) & (b) - Opposition failed

Section 55 - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. The Hearing Officer compared the applicants Class 8 goods with the opponents Class 3 registration but did not make a finding as to similarity.


The opponent filed no evidence in support of the grounds under Section 3 listed above and the Hearing Officer dismissed the opposition based on the Section 3 grounds.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the opponents based their opposition on ownership and use of their VIRGIN marks registered in Class 3. The Hearing Officer noted that in respect of the applicants Class 3 application, identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks VIRGIN and VIRGIL. The Hearing Officer decided that while they were similar aurally they were very different conceptually and he did not believe that confusion was likely, even taking into account the opponents reputation in their VIRGIN mark.

As the Hearing Officer had decided that the respective marks were not confusingly similar he went on to find against the opponent under Section 5(4) and 5(3) of the Act. A claim under the Paris Convention - Section 55 - was found not to be substantiated and thus failed also.

Full decision O/014/01 PDF document46Kb