Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
21 September 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr C Bowen
09, 18, 25, 38, 45
Registered Proprietor
Courtesy Shoes Limited
Applicants for a declaration of invalidity
Halfords Limited
Application for Invalidation
Sections 47(1) citing Sections 3(1)(b) & (c) & 47(2)(a) & (b) (citing Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)).


Application for invalidation, Section 47(1) (citing Sections 3(1)(b) & 3(1)(c)): failed. Application for invalidation, Section 47(2) (citing Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a), partially successful.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks TRAX v KIDDY TRAX
  • 2. Comparison of the goods; ‘cycle helmets’ v goods in Class 25


The marks in suit were registered in respect of a range of items related to the location and tracking of children but also in relation to clothing headgear etc.

The Hearing Officer did not agree that the combination of the words ‘kiddy’ and ‘tracks’ (or their phonetic equivalents), even when used in relation to items designed for the finding or tracking of children, was objectionable under Sections 3(1)(c) or 3(1)(b). These grounds were dismissed.

The applicants’ case under Section 5(2)(b) was based on their mark TRAX. Genuine use of this however, was shown only in relation to ‘cycle helmets’. On this basis the Hearing Officer, having compared the marks and the goods, concluded that the applicants should succeed in respect of the ‘protective clothing’ in the registered proprietor’s Class 9 specification, and the ‘articles of clothing, footwear, handwear and headgear’ in Class 25.

There was insufficient evidence to satisfy the Hearing Officer that the applicants had a reputation in the UK and the Section 5(3) objection failed accordingly. The applicants succeeded under Section 5(4)(a), but only to the same extent as under Section 5(2)(b).

In view of the partial success of both sides the Hearing Officer made no order as to costs.

Full decision O/269/06 PDF document136Kb