Home » Trade Marks » When Harry met Selfridges

When Harry met Selfridges

Keltie LLP

K2 IP Limited

About IPcopy

IPcopy is an intellectual property related news site covering a wide variety of IP related news and issues. We will also take the odd lighthearted look at IP. Feel free to contact us via the details on the About Us page.

Disclaimer: Unless stated otherwise, the contributors to IPcopy (the "IPcopy writers") are patent and trade mark attorneys or patent and trade mark assistants at Keltie LLP or are network attorneys at K2 IP Limited. Guest contributors will be identified.

This news site is the personal site of the contributors and is not edited by the authors' employer in any way. From time to time however IPcopy may publish practice notes, legal updates and marketing news from Keltie LLP or K2 IP Limited. Any such posts will be clearly marked.

This news site is for information purposes only. Information posted to this news site is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. If you require IP related legal advice please contact your legal representative.

For the avoidance of doubt Keltie LLP and K2 IP Limited have no liability as to the content of IPcopy and any related tweets or social media posts.

Privacy Policy

IPcopy’s Privacy Policy can be viewed here.

cocktailA name is not reason for confusion

In a decision of the UKIPO (O/219/18, HARRY GORDON’S BAR and HARRY GORDONS (Opposition), 5th April 2018), the IPO found in favour of retailer Selfridges, allowing the registration of its trade mark applications for HARRY GORDON’S BAR and HARRY GORDONS.

In May 2013, Selfridges applied for the above trade marks covering classes 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 for goods including alcohol and services for providing drinks.

In August 2013, Harry’s New York Bar filed a notice of opposition against all of the goods and services in both applications. The Opponent argued that the use of the name HARRY in Selfridges’ trade marks resulted in similarities with its earlier marks HARRY’S, HARRY’S BAR and HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR, which it claims were first used in Paris in 1911.

The Opponent submitted that its bars can be found in luxury hotels that would be visited by the same sort of people who frequent Selfridges’ store on London’s Oxford Street. Therefore, use of the mark in such a prestigious establishment would “ride on the coat tails” of its existing reputation.

Selfridges rejected these claims, stating that its bar was named after the retailer’s founder, Harry Gordon Selfridge, and inspired by the popular TV series, Mr Selfridge, about his life.

Comparison of marks

The IPO said that, as all the marks at issue began with the name HARRY, there was an inevitable degree of visual and aural similarity – however, only to a medium degree for HARRY GORDONS and to a slightly higher than medium degree for HARRY GORDON’S BAR.

The conceptual similarity was found to be low because the Opponent’s HARRY’S BAR trade mark indicates that the bar is owned or operated by somebody called Harry, giving no reference to a surname. Meanwhile, Selfridges’ trade marks refer to a specific individual, namely a HARRY whose surname is GORDON, or the particular individual Harry Gordon Selfridge.

Likelihood of confusion

The IPO stated that consumers are used to distinguishing between names and using them to identify particular undertakings, because it is not uncommon for bars and restaurants to use personal names for their businesses. Therefore, HARRY GORDONS or HARRY GORDON’S BAR would not be perceived as a reconfiguration of HARRY’S BAR. Consequently, the s5(2)(b) claim failed.


The Opponent’s evidence supported use and reputation in the sign HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR, but not HARRY’S BAR, because the differences between the marks were considered sufficient to avoid the public making the necessary link. Even if the Opponent had a reputation for HARRY’S BAR in the EU, its Paris location meant it had not been brought to the attention of a commercially significant part of the UK public. Therefore, the ss5(3) and 5(4)(a) claims failed.

The opposition failed in respect of all of the grounds pleaded by the Opponent, and it was ordered to pay Selfridges £2,200.

Although there is nothing objectionable about businesses using personal names per se, small differences and conceptual variations between name marks can often be sufficient to avoid the risk of likelihood of confusion.

Key points:

  • While names are, in most cases, perfectly acceptable as trade marks, they often do not result in the most distinctive of marks
  • Small differences and conceptual variations between similar name marks can be sufficient to rule out overall similarity

Amelia Skelding 22 May 2019

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: