Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
11 January 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Clive Melville Charles Smith & Scott Charles Smith
Head Sport AG
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark HEAD in Class 25 in respect of the same and similar goods to those of the applicants. They also filed extensive use of their mark and the Hearing Officer accepted that they had a reputation in their mark in relation to sports clothing. The evidence also indicated that the opponents used their HEAD mark with other marks.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and closely similar goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks HEAD and STONEHEAD. Having compared the respective marks visually, aurally and conceptually the Hearing Officer decided that they were not confusingly similar. He also noted the opponents submission that STONE might be seen as a colour and thus increase the likelihood of confusion but the Hearing Officer thought this unlikely as STONE is an imprecise colour. Similarly where the opponents have used their HEAD mark with other marks or descriptive matter, the mark HEAD is always the predominant element. In this case the applicants mark is presented as a single element and the comparison with the opponents mark must be made on that basis.

Full decision O/026/02 PDF document17Kb