Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
12 August 2004
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
25, 35
Harjeet Singh Jorhal.
Michael Kors LLC
Sections 5(2)(b);5(3) & 5(4)(a)


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

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks KORS v KÖRE ; adjudged to be not similar.


The opposition was based on registrations of the marks KORS and MICHAEL KORS. The Hearing Officer based his analysis on the mark KORS, in Class 25; if the opponents did not succeed in respect of this mark they could be in no better a position in respect of their other marks, he said.

It was 'self-evident', said the Hearing Officer that the goods specified in the applications were identical with the opponents’ goods and the services were similar. The matter therefore came down to a comparison of the marks KÖRE & KORS and an assessment of the likelihood of confusion. Having compared the marks, however, the Hearing Officer concluded that they were not similar. On a 'global view' there was no likelihood of confusion he found. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

The Hearing Officer went on to consider the opposition under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a), but his finding in respect of the similarity of the marks had effectively decided the matter under these heads too.

Full decision O/247/04 PDF document39Kb