The applicant’s application to register a trade mark was opposed by the respondents. The applicants had been using the name ‘Hope Builders’ for a building service. The respondents had a registered trade mark, ‘Hope’ their services related to charitable fundraising.
The respondent’s averment was to the effect that under section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 there was a likelihood of confusion between the two names.
The court decided that there was no likelihood of confusion in the word ‘hope’ used by two different charities because that word lacked distinctiveness. Yet further, the court found that the two marks view as a how had differing addition text which served to reduce the likelihood of confusion between the names.