Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/097/05
- Decision date
- 13 April 2005
- Hearing Officer
- Mr J MacGillivray
- Mark
- TOMMY
- Classes
- 25
- Applicant
- Tommy Hilfiger Licensing Inc
- Opponent
- Etam Plc
- Opposition
- Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
- 1. Comparison of the marks TAMMY v TOMMY
Summary
The opposition was based on registrations and use of the mark TAMMY, in Classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 35.
The opponent’s mark did not have a strong inherent distinctive character, said the Hearing Officer, but the reputation in the mark warranted a wide penumbra of protection.
The goods were identical. The Hearing Officer therefore proceeded to a comparison of the marks.
There were obvious similarities in the marks but on "a global appreciation and taking into account all the relevant factors" the Hearing Officer concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion. The Section 5(2)(b) opposition failed accordingly, and this effectively decided the matter under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) also.
Full decision O/097/05 
55Kb
