Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
8 February 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
mipi baby products
10, 21
Phil Moore
Mercis BV
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


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

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

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

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the mark MIFFY registered in a range of Classes including Classes 21, 25 and 28. It also filed evidence of use but this evidence was somewhat general in nature and the Hearing Officer had some difficulty in deciding how the use affected the reputation of the opponent’s mark. As he considered the opponent’s mark to be prima facie distinctive he did not think that the use indicated enhanced the reputation of MIFFY to any significant extent. In any case he noted that the use had been in respect of a range of nursery products (Class 24), children’s and babies’ clothing (Class 25), children’s toys (Class 28) and some goods such as feeding and drinking articles (Class 21).

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer considered the use and also the goods listed in the opponent’s specification and he concluded that identical and similar goods as those of the applicant were at issue. However, he did not consider that MIPI and MIFFY were confusingly similar and that overall there was unlikely to be any confusion if the applicant used its mark. Opposition failed on this ground.

Opposition also failed under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) because of the absence of a strong reputation and because the Hearing Officer considered that the respective marks were not confusingly similar

Full decision O/042/06 PDF document60Kb