For the whole decision click here: o43701
Result
Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed
Section 5(3) - Opposition failed
Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed
Points Of Interest
Summary
The opposition was based on the opponents’ registrations of their mark REPLAY. The consideration under Section 5(2)(b) therefore came down to a comparison of the goods. The opponents had a Community Trade Mark application covering identical goods in Class 28, but this was dated later than the application in suit and thus was not an earlier trade mark. The goods covered by the opponents’ earlier marks were, in the view of the Hearing Officer, too dissimilar for any likelihood of confusion. Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponents had not established a case, and under Section 5(4)(a) he found that the goodwill which the opponents had established was in clothing, and those were too dissimilar to the games and toys in the application.