Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/355/03

Decision date

18 November 2003

Hearing Officer

Mr G Salthouse

Mark

METS

Classes

09, 16, 25, 28, 41

Applicant

Major League Baseball Properties Inc

Opponent

Secretary of State for Defence (MOD )

Opposition

Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)* (*A number of other grounds were cited but withdrawn; the Hearing Officer refused a request to add a further objection under Section 3(3)(b)).

Result

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.

Summary

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 106Kb