Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
24 October 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
07, 12
Cummins Engine Company Inc
Perkins Holdings Limited
Sections 5(2), 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

  • Family of marks. A claim by the opponents that they could rely on the benefits of use of a family of POWER plus marks was not substantiated by the evidence filed.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a number of POWERPART registrations in various classes including Classes 7 and 9, PERKINS POWERPAK (POWERPAK disclaimed) and POWERPIC. Details of user of the mark POWERPART from 1980 onwards in relation to parts and kits for the repair and servicing of engines was filed. It was accepted by the Hearing Officer that identical or closely similar goods were at issue so the conflict under Section 5(2)(b) fell to be decided by comparing the respective marks POWERPART and POWERCARE. The Hearing Officer considered that there was some visual similarity but that they were different phonetically and conceptually. In view of the specialised nature of the goods the Hearing Officer believed they would be selected with care and therefore confusion was unlikely.

As the Hearing Officer held that the respective marks were not confusingly similar he dealt only briefly with the grounds under Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a) and concluded that the opponents also failed on these grounds.

Full decision O/466/01 PDF document25Kb