Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
11 March 1998
Hearing Officer
Mr S J Probert
Johannes Carel Van Wierst
Scandinavian Airlines Systems Denmark-Norway-Sweden
Sections 3(1), 3(4), 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(1) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(4) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition succeeded.

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

Points Of Interest

  • None.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration in Class 39 of the mark SAS JACKPOT in respect of the same and similar services to those of the applicant. The opponents also claimed use of the marks SAS JACKPOT and JACKPOT (solus) from 1992 onwards but little evidence was filed to show what position had been established by the relevant date 12 September 1994 (the priority date).

The grounds under Section 3(1) and 3(4) were dismissed by the Hearing Officer since the opponents’ arguments related to relative grounds and Section 3 relates to absolute grounds. The ground under Section 3(6) was also dismissed since the opponents filed no evidence in support of their claims.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar services were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks JACKPOT-FLIGHT and SAS JACKPOT. As regards the applicants mark the Hearing Officer considered the word JACKPOT to be the dominant element since the word FLIGHT is clearly descriptive in relation to the services at issue. As he considered the word JACKPOT to be a predominant element in the opponents mark, he concluded that the two marks were confusingly similar and that the opponents succeeded on this ground.

With regard to the ground under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer determined that the opponents must fail since they had failed to show that they had a reputation in their marks SAS JACKPOT and JACKPOT at the relevant date.

Full decision O/065/98 PDF document33Kb