Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
23 December 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
07, 11, 19, 37, 40, 42, 44
Michael Schwartz Construction Ltd
Zurich Versicherungs-Gesellschaft
Sections 3(6); 5(3); 5(4)(a) and 56


Section 3(6): Opposition failed Section 5(3): Opposition partially successful Section 5(4)(a): Opposition partially successful Section 56: No formal finding

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of the services: buildings construction v building insurance and warranties.


The opponents, in the Hearing Officer’s finding, had a significant reputation in respect of warranties and guarantees of buildings, using their Z logo. The mark applied for created a real likelihood of misrepresentation and damage in respect of the class 37 and 42 services and the opposition succeeded under Section 5(4)(a) in respect of those classes.

The opposition also succeeded under Section 5(3) to the same extent as the Section 5(4)(a) objection.

Whilst it would have been “easy to arrive at the conclusion” that the applicants’ choice of logo “was no accident” and that in the circumstances they “could have made a better choice” poor judgement was not in itself sufficient grounds for concluding that they had acted dishonestly. The Section 3(6) ground was therefore dismissed.

As the Section 56 ground would not improve the result for the opponents to any greater extent than that achieved under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a), the Hearing Officer made no formal finding; and in view of the ‘score draws’ made no award of costs.

Full decision O/339/08 PDF document101Kb