Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
1 April 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
06, 07, 08, 12, 16, 19, 20, 21, 37
Rapid Racking Limited
Isaberg Rapid AB & Isaberg AB
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful.

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): Opposition partially successful.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks, RAPID and RAPID-VU v RAPID OFFICE.
  • 2. Comparison of the goods.
  • 3. Costs in proceedings before the Registrar.


The opposition was based on a Community Trade Mark application for registration of RAPID and device, in Classes 7, 8 and 16, and a UK registration of RAPID-VU in Class 16. Initially directed at all the applicant’s goods and services, the opposition was, at the hearing, reduced to only some of the applicant’s goods in Classes 6, 8, 16, 19, 20 and 21.

Under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer found some of the goods in issue to be similar to the opponents’ goods; the similarities in the marks outweighed the differences and overall he found a likelihood of confusion in respect of the similar goods.

The Hearing Officer also found the opponents successful under Section 5(4)(a) in relation to a limited range of tools, based on their RAPID mark. The evidence did not support any wider claim.

The opponents failed to demonstrate that use of the mark in suit on goods dissimilar to their own would cause detriment. The Section 5(3) objection therefore failed.

The Section 5(2)(b) finding in relation to Class 8 goods was provisional, subject to the eventual fate of the opponents’ Community Trade Mark application.

In view of the opponents’ limited success the Hearing Officer awarded costs to the applicant.

Full decision O/089/05 PDF document71Kb