Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
1 August 2000
Hearing Officer
Dr W J Trott
01, 09, 16
Jet-Tek Office Services Ltd
Kabushiki Kaisha Tec (Tec Corporation)
Sections 3(1)(a) & (b). Section 5(2)


Sections 3(1)(a) & (b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


Neither party filed evidence in the proceedings and only the opponents were represented at the hearing. No detailed submissions made by the opponents in relation to the Section 3 grounds and, after due consideration of the requirements of that Section, the Hearing Officer concluded that the mark at issue met the requirements of Section 3 and that the opposition failed on that ground.

Under Section 5(2) the opponents based their opposition on the ownership of three registrations for the mark TEC in Class 9. Use also claimed in relation to specific goods within that Class. As a first step the Hearing Officer decided that the opponents Class 9 goods were not similar to the applicants Class 1 and Class 16 goods and the opposition failed against those Classes. In Class 9 the Hearing Officer accepted that identical goods were at issue but concluded that the respective marks Jet-Tek and TEC were not confusingly similar. In reaching his decision he took account of the non-distinctive nature of the opponents TEC mark. Opposition failed.

Full decision O/262/00 PDF document31Kb