Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
26 June 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr E S Smith
Marine & General Mutual Life Assurance Society
Gerrard Ltd (formerly Greig Middleton & Co Ltd)
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 g2m v GM (both stylised).


The opposition was based on the opponents’ mark GM (stylised), registered in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 42.

Under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion despite the identical nature of the services involved. The opponents’ mark was "minimalist" and any differences between it and the applicants’ mark were going to be amplified and of great weight in the overall assessment of likelihood of confusion. The relevant public for the services were likely to be more than "reasonably circumspect"

In view of his finding that identical services were involved, the Hearing Officer considered that Section 5(3) did not apply.

Under Section 5(4)(a), the Hearing Officer considered that the evidence did not allow him to determine the nature and extent of the reputation. This, together with the findings regarding the marks themselves, decided the matter against the opponents.

Full decision O/257/02 PDF document45Kb