Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
19 November 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
16, 25, 28
Major League Baseball Properties Inc
Secretary of State for Defence (MOD)
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)*


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

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

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks MET v METS stylised.


This opposition was one of two related oppositions; the other is set out in BL O/355/03). The marks cited by the opponent were MET OFFICE & MET (the latter being a CTM application).

It was common ground that the goods were similar.

The Hearing Officer therefore went on to make an assessment of the marks. As in the related decision (BL O/355/03) he found no likelihood of confusion in the case of the opponent’s MET OFFICE mark. His finding was different, however, in the case of the MET mark.

The mark applied for had a degree of stylisation but it was very slight.

The oppositions under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded therefore, subject to the eventual registration of the opponent’s CTM application.

The evidence did not support the opposition under Section 5(4)(a); this ground failed.

The question of costs would be considered after the receipt of written submissions.

Full decision O/356/03 PDF document74Kb