The application for ARMOUR MOUTHGUARDS covering ‘mouthguards’ filed by Anthony James Adaimy was opposed by Under Armour, Inc.
The opponent is the owner of several prior registrations for UNDER ARMOUR, including one registration that covered the exact goods as the applicant’s trade mark and argued that less weight should be accorded to the non-distinctive element of the applicant’s mark.
The Hearing Officer agreed, but was not convinced that ‘ARMOUR’ is the dominant part of the opponent’s UNDER ARMOUR registration. Rather, the Hearing Officer took the view that UNDER ARMOUR conveys a distinct impression from ARMOUR. As such, the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective trade marks were not deceptively similar under section 44.
Having made a finding that the marks were not deceptively similar under section 44 when the goods are exact, the Hearing Officer did not consider there to be likely deception or confusion as a result of the reputation of the opponent under section 60.
The opposition failed on all grounds pressed.
To view the Office decision, click here.