Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 October 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Linmark Electronics Limited
Craig Jameson Baillie, Stephen Lambert & Dual Glo Ltd
Sections 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 3(6) & 5(2)(b)


Section 3(1)(b): Opposition successful Section 3(1)(c): Opposition successful Section 3(1)(d): No formal finding Section 3(6): Opposition failed Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • State of the register evidence; common elements in marks; bearing on combination of Section 3(1)(c)


This was one of two related oppositions; the applicants in this case being the opponents in the other (see BL O/283/08).

The specification in the application had been reduced as a result of a partially successful opposition by a third party (see BL O/257/07).

The Hearing Officer concluded that the mark as applied for (the word DUAL solus) was devoid of distinctive character and was commonly used in reference to the goods specified. The opposition under Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) succeeded accordingly and the Hearing Officer did not go on to make a finding under Section 3(1)(d). The evidence of use did not establish that the plain word DUAL had become distinctive of the applicants.

The Section 3(6) objection was grounded in the fact that the present applicants had previously backed down in respect of an earlier application when opposed by the present opponents. The Hearing Officer however concluded that there was no bad faith involved in a re-testing of the situation perhaps involving additional factors. This ground failed.

He found no likelihood of confusion and the Section 5(2)(b) ground failed also.

Full decision O/284/08 PDF document96Kb