Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
3 June 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
URBAN SHOP (stylised) & Device
18, 25, 35
Glyn Berrington
Richard Charles Archer-Perkins
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the mark URBAN SHOCK which is registered in respect of a range of goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25. The opposition was directed at all the goods and services of the applicant other than a few specified services in Class 35. In comparing the respective goods and services the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue in Classes 18 and 25 but concluded that there was no similarity as regards the applicant’s services in Class 35.

Both parties filed some evidence as to how they use their marks but neither side had used their marks prior to the relevant date. Also, as the opponent’s mark was applied for in 2003 and registered in 2004 the proof of use provisions do not apply in this case.

In comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted that they were conceptually different and that they are very different visually because the applicant’s mark is presented in a striking logo style. While there is some phonetic similarity the Hearing Officer concluded overall that the marks are not confusingly similar, even for identical goods, and that the opposition failed in respect of the Section 5(2)(b) ground.

Full decision O/152/08 PDF document165Kb