Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
10 November 2000
Hearing Officer
Mr A James
Satish Wadhumal Raisinghani
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co Ltd
Sections 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(6) - Opposition successful in respect of some of the goods specified.

Section 5(2) - Opposition successful in respect of the remainder of the goods specified.

Section 5(3) - Opposition dismissed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. "... where a mark with a reputation with the public is consistently used in the same typeface, the typography inevitably becomes a subtle (albeit peripheral) part of the distinctive character of the mark."
  • 2. "The additional protection afforded by Section 5(3) is intended to extend the protection afforded to an earlier mark with a reputation to cases where i) the later mark is either the same of similar enough to the earlier mark to be detrimental, and ii) there is no likelihood of confusion under Section 5(2) because the goods are too dissimilar."


The opposition was based on the opponents' mark PANASONIC. Under Section 5(2) the Hearing Officer found the opposition successful in respect of certain goods specified in the application. The marks were not however, sufficiently similar as to allow a finding for the opponents under Section 5(3). The remaining goods in the specification were refused under Section 3(6). The Hearing Officer made no finding under Section 5(4).

Full decision O/413/00 PDF document81Kb