Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
18 November 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
09, 16, 25, 28, 41
Major League Baseball Properties Inc
Secretary of State for Defence (MOD )
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)* (*A number of other grounds were cited but withdrawn; the Hearing Officer refused a request to add a further objection under Section 3(3)(b)).


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

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

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks MET v METS and device.


This opposition was one of two related oppositions; the other is set out in BL O/356/03). The marks cited by the opponent were MET OFFICE & MET (the latter being a CTM application).

The Hearing Officer, dealt first with the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) based on the opponent’s mark MET OFFICE. He found no likelihood of confusion. Neither did he find any likelihood of confusion in the case of the opponent’s MET mark. The Section 5(2)(b) opposition failed accordingly.

The Section 5(4)(a) objection also failed as there was no likelihood of misrepresentation.

The outcome in this case differed therefore from that in BL O/356/03, q.v.

The matter of costs was to be dealt with in a separate decision after receipt of written submissions.

Full decision O/355/03 PDF document106Kb