Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
9 August 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
09, 28, 36, 42
Armatic AB
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft
Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None.


The opponents based their opposition on their ownership of a similar device mark registered in Class 36. The opponents had extensive use of their device mark but such use was mainly in conjunction with other word marks. That being the case the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponents had a separate and distinct reputation in the device alone.

With regard to Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that there was a clash of identical services in Class 36 and possibly similar services/goods in Class 9. When comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer noted that the respective device elements were very similar but when comparing the respective marks as wholes, he decided that the presence of the prominent and distinctive word ARMATIC meant that there was little likelihood of confusion. Opposition failed on this ground.

Opposition also failed under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a) because of the Hearing Officers finding that, compared as wholes, the respective marks were not confusingly similar.

Full decision O/340/01 PDF document29Kb