Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
2 April 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
04, 16, 25, 41
Cesare Zangheri
Flamagas SA
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)


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

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration of the mark FLAMI (stylised) in Class 34 in respect of "Lighters and smokers articles". They also claimed extensive use of their mark but the evidence of use filed did not support this claim. Consequently the Hearing Officer decided that their Section 5(3) ground was not sustainable and that the essential ground for consideration was under Section 5(2)(b).

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical and similar goods were in issue in relation to the applicants Class 34 application and went on to compare the respective marks FLAMI (stylised) and FLAMINAIRE. The Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks were different visually and aurally but that there was some conceptual similarity in that both marks contained the element FLAM. More importantly the Hearing Officer noted that the opponents mark was totally contained within the applicant’s mark and in the context of confusion he though it possible that some customers might assume that goods under the respective marks came from associated or economically linked undertakings or that the new mark was a variant form or development of the registered mark. In conclusion the Hearing Officer decided that in relation to identical and closely similar goods there was the possibility of confusion. The applicant’s application would be allowed to proceed in respect of other goods within its Class 34 application and the other classes claimed.

Full decision O/138/02 PDF document57Kb