Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
16 October 2007
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
MISSHA (Stylised) with Flower Device
Abel C & C Co Ltd
Mary Quant Cosmetics Japan Ltd
Sections: 3(6), 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & 56


Opposition failed on all grounds

Points Of Interest

  • Similarity of marks, “other jurisdictions’ decisions regarding the similarity of marks are not binding upon the Registry”.
  • See also BL O/305/07


The opposition was based on one registration of MARY QUANT & Flower device and one of the flower device solus. It was common ground that the goods were identical. The Hearing Officer therefore turned to a comparison of the respective marks. In his view the main differences between them far outweighed the similarities and in the result he found no likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly. The Section 5(3) objection also failed because even had the opponents demonstrated the necessary regulation (which they had not), the differences in the marks would have decided the matter. This, effectively dealt with the Section 5(4)(a) objection also. The Section 3(6) objection also failed.

Full decision O/303/07 PDF document88Kb