Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
18 October 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
09, 16, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42
Mobo Holdings (UK) Limited
Arcadia Group Brands Limited
Sections 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


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

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

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

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks MOTO v MOBO (stylised).
  • 2. The opponents' claim that their registration of the unstylised word MOTO included within its scope all stylised versions "may be somewhat ambitious".


The opposition was based on the opponents' registrations and use of their mark MOTO, and was principally directed at the application in Class 25. The Hearing Officer found the goods in that Class to be identical with those in the opponents' registration and went on to consider the marks at issue.

Despite his finding that the marks shared "a degree of oral/aural similarity" the Hearing Officer was unable to find a likelihood of confusion and the Section 5(2)(b) objections failed accordingly.

That effectively decided the matter under Section 5(3) also since the Hearing Officer could see no basis for success in relation to dissimilar goods when the opposition had failed in relation to identical goods.

The evidence relating to reputation and goodwill was insufficient to support a case under Section 5(4)(a).

Full decision O/431/02 PDF document48Kb