Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
6 February 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr C Bowen
DOOSAN (stylised) & device
Registered Proprietor
Doosan Infracore Co Ltd
Applicants for a declaration if invalidity
Dyson Limited
Application for Invalidation
Section 47 (Citing Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a))


Application for invalidation Section 47 (citing Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)) failed.

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of the mark DYSON v DOOSAN (stylised and device).


The applicants listed a number of registrations some of which were subject to the proof of use regulations, but as they all consisted, essentially, of the word DYSON, and since two of them were not so subject, the Hearing Officer did not feel it necessary to review the evidence in relation to the remainder. The Hearing Officer therefore turned to a consideration of the matter under Section 5(2)(b).

Having determined that in the purchasing process relating to the goods in question the visual and conceptual characteristics of the respective marks were likely to be the most important, the Hearing Officer proceeded to a comparison of the goods (identical) and the respective marks. In this he found a low degree of visual similarity, a reasonable degree of oral/aural similarity and no conceptual similarity. Overall he found no likelihood of confusion. This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a) also.

Full decision O/031/08 PDF document175Kb