Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
20 March 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr S P Rowan
Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha
Accurist Watches Ltd
Section 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


Opposition based on opponent’s registration in Class 14 of the mark ACCURIST. Under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer found that identical or very similar goods were covered by the respective specifications (ie watches and clocks etc), and that the mark ACCURIST had acquired a reputation and had a highly distinctive character, not only per se but through use. However, he also found that the two marks were very different, visually, aurally and conceptually, and that the mark in suit was inherently distinctive, and in applying the usual tests he was not persuaded that there was a likelihood of confusion due to imperfect recollection, being unable to place much weight on limited survey evidence from the opponent which, confined to responses from the jewellery trade, was not statistically significant.

In dealing briefly with the opposition under Section 5(4)(a), he found no risk of misrepresentation, given the differences between the marks which influenced his finding under Section 5(2)(b), and the opponent’s failure to persuade him that the public associated the suffix "urist" with the opponent.

Full decision O/140/01 PDF document37Kb