Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
16 June 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
09, 16, 41
E! Entertainment Television Inc
Deutsche Telecom
Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 56(1)


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

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 56(1): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks, T-ONLINE v E! ONLINE.


The opposition was based on registrations of the mark T-ONLINE.

The Hearing Officer found some conceptual similarity in the marks, but overall he found them dissimilar. On the basis of the evidence before him, the Hearing Officer could not find that at the relevant date the opponents had used their mark to such an extent that it had become more distinctive or that they had a reputation in the name. Having compared the goods, and on a 'global' approach, the Hearing Officer considered that there was no likelihood of confusion, and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly. The Hearing Officer stated that this effectively decided the matter since the evidence did not support the necessary claim to reputation at the relevant date required by the other Sections of the Act cited by the opponent.

Full decision O/165/05 PDF document40Kb