Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
28 August 2000
Hearing Officer
Mr R A Jones
08, 09, 14
Mer Products Limited
Nylstar SA
Section 5(2), Section 5(3) and Section 5(4)


Section 5(2) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents opposition was based on their registered mark MERYL and some use of that mark on fibres and yarns etc for use in making a range of articles of clothing, underwear, lingerie, fabric shoes etc. Insofar as the respective specifications of goods were at issue the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks MER and MERYL in the context of Section 5(2)(b). The Hearing Officer concluded that the marks were visually and phonetically different and that there was no likelihood of confusion, even if imperfect recollection was taken into account. The Hearing Officer also considered that the limited use did not enhance the opponents position. Opposition failed.

As a result of the decision under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer dealt only briefly with the grounds under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) and concluded that the opponent failed on those grounds also.

Full decision O/324/00 PDF document26Kb