Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
15 December 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Charalambous Portelli
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
Sections 1(1); 3(6); 5(2)(b) & 5(3)


Section 1(1) - Opposition failed.

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.

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

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks PHILIPS v PHILOS


The opposition was based on registrations and use of the mark PHILIPS. The Hearing Officer could see no valid objections under Section 1(1); neither was there a case under Section 3(6).

In his consideration of the objection under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found the goods to be identical or closely similar. The mark applied for had a ‘reasonably high degree of distinctive character’; the opponents’ mark enjoyed an enhanced reputation in relation to communications and telecommunications goods.

On a comparison of the marks the Hearing Officer found ‘only a small degree of similarity’ and this was ‘outweighed by the different significations of the words’. There was no likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) failed accordingly.

The Section 5(3) ground had been pleaded in the alternative in case the goods were found to be dissimilar; they were not. The ground would have failed in any event in the light of the finding on the respective marks.

Full decision O/389/03 PDF document80Kb