If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
For the whole decision click here: o41600
Result
Section 3 - Not pursued
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opponents opposition under Section 5 was based on their ownership and use of their registered marks (Class 25) REPLAY and REPLAY & Shield Device. Applicants owned an existing registration for the mark RELAY in class 25 for a restricted specification of goods but there was an existing overlap of identical goods. The same situation arises as regards this conflict. The Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents had proved users on a modest scale but found that the applicants claimed use was not substantiated.
The nub of this case centred on the similarity or otherwise of the respective marks RELAY and REPLAY. The Hearing Officer accepted that there was some similarity but concluded that as they are both common dictionary words with distinct meanings there was no risk of aural confusion. Visual similarity which might lead to momentary confusion would not survive the normal purchasing process. Hearing Officer concluded no likelihood of confusion. Opposition failed.