Trade mark decision

BL Number: O/068/99
Decision date: 3 March 1999
Hearing Officer: Mr G Salthouse
Mark: FLOG
Classes: 25, 26, 27, 28
Applicant: Flog Industries Ltd
Opponent: H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB
Opposition: Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6) - Opposition dismissed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

None

Summary

The opposition was based on the opponents’ mark L.O.G.G. No evidence was offered in respect of the Section 3(6) allegation and this was dismissed. The Hearing Officer considered that the similarity between the marks was not such as to give rise to a likelihood of confusion. The Section 5(2)(b) ground failed accordingly, taking the Section 5(3) ground down with it. Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents had failed to show any misrepresentation or likelihood of damage and since the marks were dissimilar, that ground failed also.

Full decision O/068/99 81Kb