Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
21 November 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
09, 25, 38, 41
TV Group Ltd
Pout Limited
Sections 5(2)(a); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition partially successful.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the goods/services in Class 3 v Classes 9, 25 & 41.


The opposition, which was not directed at the Class 38 specification, was based on the opponents' registrations of 'POUT' marks in Class 3. It was one of two closely related oppositions; see also BL O/370/03.

The opposition based on Sections 5(2)(a) and 5(2)(b) failed because, in the words of the Hearing Officer "registration, identicality of trade marks, distinctiveness of the earlier trade mark cannot make dissimilar goods similar".

The evidence did not establish a reputation in terms of Section 5(3); consequently this ground failed also.

There was nothing in the evidence, or in the Hearing Offices's knowledge, which could support a case under Section 5(4)(a) in respect of the Class 9 and Class 41 specifications. This left the Class 25 goods. In this the Hearing Officer found a danger of confusion/deception and the opposition succeeded in respect of those goods.

The award of costs to the applicants reflected the limited success of the opponents and the commonality of the evidence filed in this and the related proceedings.

Full decision O/369/03 PDF document76Kb