Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
3 November 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
09, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42
Lombard North Central Plc
Lombard Risk Systems Limited & Lombard Risk Consultants Limited
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the goods/services : computer software/related services.
  • 2. Amendment of specifications in applications.


In his written decision of 16 August 2002 (see BL O/343/02) the Hearing Officer provisionally found for the opponents (except in respect of Classes 37 and 38), but stayed the proceedings pending the eventual fate of the four earlier applications (two UK and two CTM) on which the opponents had relied. This was now known. The two UK applications had been refused and the two CTM applications had been accepted but with revised specifications. Applying these results to the matter in hand the Hearing Officer compared the opponents' remaining and revised specifications to those in the application (he saw no need to revisit his earlier assessment of the similarity of the marks).

The computer software and computer programs in Class 9, he decided, were not in conflict with the opponents’ revised specifications; the revision had also removed any similarity with the Class 35 specification.

The Class 36 application as amended (see below) was not in conflict with the revised specifications. The Hearing Officer’s earlier decision had found no similarity in the Class 37 and 38 specifications; the revision of the opponents’ specifications had made the gap even wider. The revision had removed any similarity in Class 42. In the result, the opposition now failed in its totality.

NOTE: Following advertisement, but prior to the filing of the opposition, the applicants had amended their Class 36 application. The opponents claimed that the matter should be determined on the basis of the specification as originally advertised. The Hearing Officer, however, ruled that Section 39 of the Act allowed an applicant to withdraw his application or restrict the goods or services covered by the application.

Full decision O/332/03 PDF document40Kb