Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
3 February 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
A J Power Limited
Lister-Petter limited
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Promissory estoppel
  • 2. Costs in proceedings before the Registrar; "(parties) cannot play fast and loose with letters of consent".


The opposition was based on the mark LISTER, registered in Class 7.

The goods were identical; the Hearing Officer therefore proceeded to a comparison of the marks LISTER v LISTER POWER. These were similar, he found and in the result he found a likelihood of confusion.

However, the opponents had originally consented, by letter, to the registration. The Hearing Officer therefore had to consider whether they could resile from this position, or whether they were barred from opposition by promissory estoppel.

In the result he found that the letter had not been issued in error, but neither were the opponents estopped from bringing an opposition.

The Section 5(2)(b) finding stood, therefore, and the mark was refused.

However, since the opposition had arisen solely because the opponents had first issued a letter of consent and had then withdrawn it, the Hearing Officer awarded costs to the applicants.

Full decision O/033/05 PDF document104Kb