Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
8 December 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
Kenro Limited
Royal Doulton (UK) Limited
Sections 5(1): 5(2)(a); 5(3) & 5(4)(a).


Section 5(1): - Opposition failed.

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

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

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

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the goods in Classes 20 and 21.


The opposition was based on registrations and use of the marks FUSION, registered in Classes 11, 21 and 24.

The Hearing Officer lost little time in dismissing the grounds under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a), as the evidence filed by the opponents was not strong enough to support them.

The goods were not identical and hence the Section 5(1) objection was also dismissed.

The Hearing Officer then turned to consider the objection under Section 5(2)(a). The marks being identical the matter came down to a comparison of the goods. It was agreed that the opponents’ best case lay in their registrations covering “ornamental articles, models, figurines, glassware, chinaware, pottery, porcelain and earthenware”. The application specified “frames of metal for photographs, prints or pictures”. Having compared these goods the Hearing Officer concluded that they were not similar and there was no likelihood of confusion. The opposition failed accordingly.

Full decision O/383/03 PDF document51Kb