Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
15 November 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
09, 19, 35, 39, 41, 42
Cityspace Limited Partnership
Gemstar Development Corporation
Sections 1(1), 3(1)(a), 3(6) & Section 5(2)(b)


Sections 1(1) and 3(1)(a) - Opposition failed

Section 3(6) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition partially successful

Points Of Interest

  • None.


As the opponents supplied no evidence to support their grounds under Sections 1(1), 3(1)(a) and 3(6) the Hearing Officer found that the opponents failed in their opposition on these grounds.

Under Section 5 the opponents’ opposition was based on registrations for the marks VIDEO PLUS, I PLUS and I PLUS + in Class 9. They claimed extensive use of their mark VIDEO PLUS and to have rights in the word Plus and symbol +. The Hearing Officer compared the opponents goods with the goods and services claimed by the applicants and concluded that the opponents’ goods were identical and similar to those within Class 9 of the applicants application.

Before comparing the respective marks i + (stylised) and the opponents I PLUS + and I PLUS the Hearing Officer noted that the opponents registrations were subject to a disclaimer in respect of the letter I and the symbol +. However, he determined that the opponents had rights in the totality of their marks and went on to conclude that the respective marks were similar where identical or similar goods were at issue, in this case Class 9. The opposition was therefore successful but the Hearing Officer indicated that the applicants application could proceed for a restricted specification in Class 9 and in respect of the other classes claimed.

Full decision O/512/01 PDF document45Kb