Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
7 January 2004
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
18, 25
Ng Pui Yee
Swatch AG (Swatch SA)
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents’ opposition was based on their ownership of registrations of the mark SWATCH in Classes 18 and 25 in respect of identical and similar goods as those of the applicant. They also claimed use and reputation but while it was accepted that they had a reputation in the mark SWATCH in relation to watches, there was insufficient detailed evidence to show that this reputation extended to bags and clothing.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared the respective marks SWAT and SWATCH. He noted that both were dictionary words though he accepted that the meaning of SWATCH might not be particularly well known. Therefore the marks were not conceptually similar. Also while there was some visual similarity the respective marks were likely to be distinguished phonetically. Overall the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were not confusingly similar and that the opposition failed.

Full decision O/006/04 PDF document42Kb