Scoreline vs. Score Draw: IPO Ruling and Key Takeaways for Businesses

The IPO is the UK's government body responsible for intellectual property (IP) rights, such as patents, copyright and trademarks.

The IPO became the operating name of The Patent Office in 2007.

Now boasting a team of approximately 1,600, the IPO deals with IP policy, educating businesses and consumers on IP rights, supporting the enforcement of IP, and granting UK patents, trademarks and design rights.

Essentially, a trademark serves as a "brand" in that it is a sign used by traders to differentiate their goods from those of others. It is a means of communicating information regarding a product or service, providing the overarching message of, "I made this".

The table below highlights what trade marks may consist of and provides examples of corresponding marks.

The opposition to the trade mark application was brought under sections 5(2)(b) and 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 ("the Act"), relying upon the SCORE DRAW mark.

Section 5(2)(b) tells us that a trademark shall not be registered if it is similar to an earlier trademark and is to be registered for goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the earlier trade mark is protected, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association with the earlier trade mark.

In this regard, the opponent relied upon "clothing", sitting within his mark's class 25 list of goods, and claimed that the marks were extremely similar such that a consumer with imperfect recollection would find it difficult to differentiate between them.

Therefore, the opponent argued that the consumer would inevitably be confused between the marks if they were to be used for similar or identical goods.

Section 5(3) of the Act sets out that a trade mark which is identical with or similar to an earlier trade mark shall not be registered if, or to the extent that, the earlier trade mark has a reputation in the UK and the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark.

In relation to this ground, the opponent claimed to enjoy a reputation in "football shirts", which the IPO noted was "not an express term within his mark's specification" but nonetheless "is a suitable sub-category of the term for which it does stand registered".

The opponent's argument was that his mark boasts a very significant reputation in the UK for manufacturing and supplying football shirts.

As a result of this and the applicant's mark being confusingly similar to his own, the opponent claimed that the relevant public would deem the marks to be the same brand or related brands.

Therefore, the opponent claimed that the use of the applicant's mark would take unfair advantage of the reputation of SCORE DRAW.

The IPO, in making its assessment, deemed the parties' goods to be identical or similar to a varying degree and identified the average consumer for the goods to be general members of the public at large who would select the goods via visual means after having paid a medium degree of attention.

They also judged the marks to be visually, aurally and conceptually similar to a medium degree and found the 'SCORE DRAW' mark to be inherently distinctive to a low to medium degree.

However, the IPO also concluded that consumers would be able to clearly identify the differences between the two marks (such as the different second words in each) and utilise such differences to accurately recall which mark was which.

Ultimately, it was decided that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks, and so the opponent's reliance upon section 5(2)(b), as outlined above, failed.

As for the opponent's reliance upon the section 5(3) ground, though the IPO deemed the opponent's mark to hold a minor reputation, it concluded that such reputation lies in its mark in its entirety rather than in the word 'SCORE' on its own.

In any event, a link between the marks was not found, meaning there could be no damage, and so the opponent's argument in relation to section 5(3) failed.

Therefore, the opposition to the trademark application failed in its entirety, rendering the applicant free to register its mark and leaving the opponent liable to pay the applicant's costs.

This decision reinforces the importance of assessing trademarks as a whole rather than focusing on shared elements in isolation.

While similarities between "SCORELINE" and "SCORE DRAW" were acknowledged, the IPO's analysis made clear that meaningful distinctions, particularly in the marks' second elements, can be enough to tip the balance away from confusion or unfair advantage.

For brand owners, the takeaway is that even a long-standing registration with a degree of reputation may not be sufficient to block a new application without a clear overlap in consumer perception.

As always, context matters, and here, it was just enough to draw the line in favour of the applicant.