Nike International Limited v. Jose Alejandro SL

Nike International Limited

Case details

Case no.: O/352/07

Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

Industry: Fashion

Decision date: 29 Nov, 2007


Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer determined the range of identical and similar goods and he also decided that the opponent’s best case resided in its device registrations. In comparing the respective marks the Hearing Officer believed that the device element of the applicant’s mark would not be identified as a swoosh or tick and therefore there would be no oral confusion and he did not believe there was visual confusion because the respective devices created different visual impacts. Also the applicant’s mark had the additional element BUDMEN. The Hearing Officer concluded that overall the respective marks were not confusingly similar and that opposition failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground. The opposition also failed on the Section 5(3) and 5(4)(a) grounds because the Hearing Officer was of the view that the respective marks were not sufficiently similar for the public to make a link between the marks and thus there would be no deception or confusion.

Comparison of Trademarks