Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
9 July 2001
Hearing Officer
Dr W J Trott
Ohmega Electronics Products Ltd
Omega Engineering Incorporated
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition successful. Specification restricted as requested.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition successful. Specification restricted as requested.

Points Of Interest

  • If an opponent applies any limitation as to what he expects from an opposition, then that is what he will get, if successful, unless he asks for, and gets, the grounds of the opposition amended.


In their opposition the opponents asked for restriction of the applicants specification but at the hearing argued that application of the provisions of Sections 5(2) and 5(4) should lead to complete refusal. The Hearing Officer did not agree. He considered that the opponents had circumscribed the perimeter of their opposition and if they were successful, that was what they would get.

The applicants mark had proceeded to advertisement on the basis of honest concurrent use but it was accepted that once opposition was launched acceptance must be decided on its own merits. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical or closely similar goods were at issue and the respective marks OHMEGA and device and OMEGA and device were very close. Opposition succeeded on this ground.

Under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - the Hearing Officer noted that the opponents had established a goodwill in a range of goods in Class 9 which clearly were the same or similar to the goods listed in the applicants specification. As the marks were very similar there was a likelihood of misrepresentation. Opposition also succeeded on this ground.

Full decision O/298/01 PDF document37Kb