Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/465/02
Decision date
13 November 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Mark
DOT COMMENT
Classes
16, 42
Applicant
S J Berwin & Co
Opponent
Theodore Goddard
Opposition
Sections 3(6); 5(3)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 3(6): - No formal finding.

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

Section 5(4)(a) - No formal finding.

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of the marks e.comment v DOT COMMENT.

Summary

The opposition was based on a registration of the mark 'e.comment', in Classes 16 and 42. The Hearing Officer noted first that the goods and services were identical and the earlier trade mark had 'no more than a modest degree of distinctive character'. After a careful analysis of the marks the Hearing Officer recorded his view that consumers were "likely to articulate rather than ignore the full stop (dot) of the opponents mark". This rendered the marks 'phonetically similar to a substantial extent'.

Having considered all the factors the Hearing Officer found a likelihood of confusion. The opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded accordingly and the Hearing Officer did not go on to consider the objections under Sections 3(6) or 5(4)(a).

Full decision O/465/02 PDF document35Kb