Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 October 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Craig Jameson Baillie & Stephen Lambert
Linmark Electronics Limited
Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3); 5(4)(a) & 56


Opposition failed in respect of all the grounds on which it had been brought.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the mark DUAL stylised v DUAL GLO
  • 2. Effect of revocation on a claim under Section 5(4)(a)


This was one of two related oppositions; the applicants in this case being the opponent’s in the other (see BL O/284/08).

The opposition was based on the mark DUAL, stylised and set on a black rectangle, registered in respect of a specification which had been reduced as a result of a partially successful revocation action (see BL O/301/05).

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found some of the goods to be identical, some similar and others not similar. The marks, he found, had some slight visual similarity”; aurally the opposing mark’s positive was somewhat better but conceptually there was “low to negligible” similarity. Overall, the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion and the Section 5(2)(b) opposition failed.

The evidence of use did not support a claim to reputation or a claim to be a well known mark. The Section 5(3) and 56 grounds wee therefore dismissed.

The question of the effect of revocation on a claim under Section 5(4)(a) in respect of items removed as a result of the revocation was briefly considered, but in view of the failure to establish a likelihood of confusion, a misrepresentation and hence damage was also not established. The 5(4)(a) objection failed accordingly.

Full decision O/283/08 PDF document131Kb