Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/307/00

Decision date

22 August 2000

Hearing officer

Mr G Salthouse

Mark

MOBILE WAREHOUSE

Classes

09

Applicants

Michael Neame & Martin Clarke trading as MTEC Partnership

Opponents

Carphone Warehouse Limited

Opposition

Sections 3(3)(b), 3(4) & 3(6). Sections 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)

Result

Sections 3(4) & 3(6), 5(2)(a) & 5(3) - Withdrawn

Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

• None

Summary

At the hearing all the grounds of opposition were withdrawn with the exception of 3(3)(b) and 5(4)(a). As regards 3(3)(b) the Hearing Officer accepted that while the word MOBILE had specific connotations in relation to some of the goods listed in the applicants specification, it is also a well known word with a broader meaning and he therefore doubted that the mark was in any way deceptive in relation to the goods listed. Opposition failed on this ground.

The essential ground of opposition in these proceedings was under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off. While the Hearing Officer accepted that identical goods were at issue and that the opponents had a reputation in their mark CARPHONE WAREHOUSE, he took the view that the respective marks are not confusingly similar. In particular he rejected a claim by the opponents that MOBILE and CARPHONE are synonymous and went on to conclude that the opposition failed on this ground.