Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
25 January 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
09, 35, 36
Sky Capital Holdings Limited
Sky Broadcasting Group PLC
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b): Opposition successful. Sections 5(3) & 5(4)(a): Not considered.

Points Of Interest

  • The applicant filed state of the register evidence but the Hearing Officer considered that this did not assist the applicant.


The opponent in this case owns the mark SKY and device in a range of classes including 9, 35, 36 and 41 and the Hearing officer had no difficulty in concluding that identical and similar goods and services were at issue in these proceedings.

In comparing the respective marks under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the opponent’s mark was essentially a SKY mark as the word element overwhelmed the device element. Also that the word CAPITAL was very descriptive and non-distinctive in relation to financial services. Overall, the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were very similar and that the opponent was successful under Section 5(2)(b).

In view of his decision under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer saw no need to consider the grounds under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a).

Full decision O/020/08 PDF document95Kb