Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
31 August 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
Ajit Kumar
Olympus Kabushiki Kaisha
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


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

Points Of Interest

  • Submissions; time not subject to Trade Marks Rules; failure to comply carries only the risk of being too late.


The opposition was based on the opponents’ mark KEYMED (stylised) in Classes 9, 10 and 11.

Before consideration of the substantive matter the hearing Officer dealt with the opponents’ objection to the inclusion of the applicant’s submissions which had been received after the date set by the Registry. The Hearing Officer ruled that submissions are not governed by the Trade Marks Rules. Failure to comply with the date set by the registry carried only the risk that the decision might be issued before the submissions were received. The applicant’s submissions would therefore be taken into account.

Having compared the marks the Hearing Officer found that there was aural similarity, and the marks were therefore similar “on this plane if upon no other”.

The Hearing Officer went on to find, after detailed deliberation, that there was a degree of similarity between the goods and the services. Overall, however, he found no likelihood of confusion. The Section 5(2)(b) opposition failed accordingly.

This, effectively, decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) also.

Full decision O/249/06 PDF document182Kb