Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/521/02

Decision date

17 December 2002

Hearing Officer

Mr A James

Mark

PERFECT 10

Classes

03

Applicant

Original Additions (Beauty Products) Limited

Opponent

Perfect 10 Inc

Opposition

Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

• Similarity of goods/services; "Goods do not have to be dissimilar in every conceivable respect before they can be considered to be dissimilar overall."

Summary

The opposition was based on a CTM registration in Classes 9, 16 and 41 and the opponents’ magazine PERFECT 10. The Hearing Officer dealt first with the case under Section 5(4)(a). In the result he found that the applicants’ use at the relevant date had not been shown to amount to a misrepresentation. That ground of opposition therefore failed. Under Section 5(2)(b) he found that the goods and services were dissimilar, or at least, the opponents had not satisfied him that, overall, they could be considered similar.

The opposition failed under Section 5(2) accordingly, but the Hearing Officer went on to record that even if he were wrong in his finding regarding similarity, the similarity was in his view so slight that he would not be able to find a likelihood of confusion.

Full decision O/521/02 50Kb