Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 November 2000
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Tamarind International Limited
Fashion Box S.p.A.
Section 3. Section 5(2)(b)


Section 3 - Not pursued

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Hearing Officer felt it unnecessary to consider the relevance of the applicants existing registration. In any case specification of this application was couched in broader terms


The opponents opposition under Section 5 was based on their ownership and use of their registered marks (Class 25) REPLAY and REPLAY & Shield Device. Applicants owned an existing registration for the mark RELAY in class 25 for a restricted specification of goods but there was an existing overlap of identical goods. The same situation arises as regards this conflict. The Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had proved users on a modest scale but found that the applicants claimed use was not substantiated.

The nub of this case centred on the similarity or otherwise of the respective marks RELAY and REPLAY. The Hearing Officer accepted that there was some similarity but concluded that as they are both common dictionary words with distinct meanings there was no risk of aural confusion. Visual similarity which might lead to momentary confusion would not survive the normal purchasing process. Hearing Officer concluded no likelihood of confusion. Opposition failed.

Full decision O/416/00 PDF document29Kb