Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
8 August 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
25, 35, 36, 42
REO (Powerstation) Limited; (previously Parkview International London Plc)
Quorn Travel Services Ltd
Sections 3(1)(c); 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(1)(c): Opposition failed. Section 3(6): Opposition failed. Section 5(2(b): Opposition successful in part Section 5(3): Opposition failed. Section 5(4)(a): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of the services; purchasing services/retailing services.


The opposition was based on registration and use of a mark THE POWER STATION in Classes 35, 36, 39, 41 & 42. Under Section 3(1)(c) the Hearing Officer found that the mark as a whole was not a geographical indication; this ground was dismissed. The history of previous encounters between the parties indicated that there was no bad faith involved in the application; it had been a prudent step. The Section 3(6) objection was dismissed.

A comparison of the respective services showed that some were similar or identical whilst others were dissimilar. The marks however were very closely similar. Having reviewed other relevant factors the Hearing Officer concluded that the Section 5(2)(b) objection should succeed in respect of the similar/identical services but not in respect of the remainder.

The necessary reputation in the earlier mark was not established by the evidence and the Section 5(3) objection failed accordingly. The evidence in support of a claim to a goodwill was insufficient to establish a case under Section 5(4)(a); even if it had done so it would not have succeeded to any greater extent than that already achieved under Section 5(2)(b).

As both sides had achieved a measure of success the Hearing Officer did not award costs to either one.

Full decision O/225/08 PDF document84Kb