Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
8 February 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr J MacGillivray
p n d
03, 09, 18, 25
Paul Davis
William John Dickinson, Anthony Frederick Richardson, Simon Dickie & Gary Thorney Croft t/a POD Trademarks Partnership
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. None


The opponent owned registrations for the mark pod (slightly stylised) in Classes 3, 9, 18 and 25 in respect of identical and similar goods to those of the applicant. The opponent also filed use of its mark and the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent possessed goodwill and a not insignificant reputation in its mark. It was not however a household name among the relevant public.

The opponent objected to the mark applied for on two grounds. The applicant’s device element consists of an oval shaped device with a descending line on its left hand side and an ascending line on its right hand side and the opponent submitted that this resembled the word pod; secondly as regards the letter element there was only one letter different between POD and PND. The Hearing Officer compared the respective marks and concluded that there was unlikely to be any confusion since the opponent’s mark would be recognised as the well known word POD whereas the applicant’s mark would be referred to as a device and letter mark. Also he did not believe that consumers would see the mark Pod in the device element of the opponent’s mark. Therefore, even though identical goods were at issue the ground of opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed.

The opposition also failed under Section 5(4)(a) – Passing Off – in view of the finding under Section 5(2)(b) that the respective marks were not similar.

Full decision O/036/05 PDF document88Kb