Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
10 November 2004
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
03, 06, 11, 12, 13, 16, 21, 24, 31, 39
M-Real Corporation
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


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

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks, LOGIC v GEOLOGIC; not similar.


The opposition was based on the opponent’s mark LOGIC, registered in class 16 for a specification of 'paper'.

The Hearing Officer dealt first with the objection under Section 5(2)(b). The opponent had not specified which goods or services it considered similar, but the Hearing Officer quickly dismissed any suggestion of similarity in respect of all the applicant’s goods and services in Classes 3, 6, 11, 13, 21, 24, 31 and 39. This left only the goods in the Class 16 specification, which clearly were similar.

The Hearing Officer then turned to a comparison of the marks LOGIC and GEOLOGIC, and the opponent’s claim that the initial part of the applicant’s mark, GEO, would be ignored and the remainder was identical with its own mark, LOGIC. However, the Hearing Officer did not accept this contention. He found the marks to be not similar, and on a global assessment he found no likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

This effectively decided the matter under Section 5(4)(a) also, as no misrepresentation would occur.

Full decision O/337/04 PDF document39Kb