Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
6 July 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
07, 09, 11, 12
Hyundai Mobis Co Ltd
Exxonmobil Oil Corporation
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & Section 56


Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed. Section 56: Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • The opponent appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 15 January 2007 (BL O/020/07 the Appointed Person allowed the appeal in part in respect of Class 9 goods and engine oil filters in Class 7.


The opponent owns registrations of the mark MOBIL in a range of Classes covering a vast range of goods and services. It also claimed a wide ranging reputation in respect of such goods and services but the evidence of use filed in support of the opposition showed only use in respect of lubricating oils and even in respect of these goods the evidence was vague and poorly focused. As a consequence the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponent had failed to supports its grounds under Sections 5(3), 5(4)(a) and Section 56. Opposition failed on these grounds.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer was critical of the opponent in that it had not particularised the area of conflict and in view of the wide range of goods and services at issue this should have been done. However, in order to test the area of conflict he compared the services of the opponent in Class 37 with the goods of the applicant and had no hesitation in reaching a finding that they are similar. As regards the respective marks MOBIL and MOBIS while the first four letters of each mark are the same the words are relatively short and the difference in the last letters “L” and “S” produce marks which look and sound different. The Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks are not similar and that overall there was no likelihood of confusion of the public. Opposition failed on this ground.

Full decision O/186/06 PDF document98Kb