Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
27 March 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr R A Jones
18, 25, 28
HTM Deutschland GmbH
Lundhags Skomakarna AB
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • During the course of the proceedings the Registrar pointed out to the applicants that their evidence was deficient in certain respects. The applicants declined to rectify matters and while the Hearing Officer accepted the evidence into the proceedings, he gave it little weight.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration for the mark "Certech" in respect of footwear in Class 25. They also claimed use of their mark but the extent of that use prior to the relevant date of 20 January 1998 was extremely modest and the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponents had any enhanced distinctiveness in their mark.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks C-TECH and Certech. Visually he considered them quite different and aurally that they would be pronounced as SEETECH and SERTECH which in his view was sufficient to distinguish between short two-syllable marks. Taking an overall view of the matter and bearing in mind the opponents had no enhanced reputation in their mark the Hearing Officer concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion of the public. Opposition failed on this ground.

As the Hearing Officer had decided that the respective marks were not confusingly similar he considered that, bearing in mind the opponents modest use, they could be in no better position under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off. They thus also failed on that ground.

Full decision O/142/02 PDF document23Kb