Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
5 May 2004
Appointed Person
Mr David Kitchin QC
05, 09
Fashion Wear Services Limited
For Eyes Optical Company
Appeal against the decision of the Registrar’s Hearing Officer in opposition proceedings


Appeal against the findings of the Hearing Officer, Section 5(2)(b), dismissed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks : FOR EYES v FOUR EYEZ.


At first instance (see BL O/317/03) the Hearing Officer had found the opponents unsuccessful under the only ground on which their opposition had been brought, Section 5(2)(b). The opponents appealed to the Appointed Person claiming:- (i) the Hearing Officer had failed to consider the matter from the perspective of the average consumer, (ii) he had sought to dissect the marks and failed to consider them as wholes; (iii) he had given undue prominence to the visual aspects of the marks and failed to take account of the aural and conceptual similarities.

The Appointed Person considered that these were not criticisms of the Hearing Officer approach but rather of the conclusion he had come to. It could not be said that there had been an error of principle, neither was the conclusion plainly wrong. The appeal was dismissed.

Full decision O/124/04 PDF document23Kb