UKIPO refuses registration of "MYSKIN" following opposition by MZ Skin Limited
The UKIPO refused a trade mark application to register MYSKIN after opposition by luxury skincare brand MZ Skin Limited (case O/0728/25, 5 August 2025).
While rejecting the opponent’s argument that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks, the Hearing Officer upheld the opposition under the ground that use of the trade mark MYSKIN would take unfair advantage from MZ SKIN's reputation.
The decisive factor was the applicant’s failure to deny some of the opponent’s claims.
Background
The applicant, an unrepresented individual, filed an application to register MYSKIN in May 2023, covering cosmetic-related goods and services across classes 1, 4, 35, 39, and 42. MZ Skin opposed based on its earlier UK registration for MZ SKIN covering cosmetics, skincare tools, and therapeutic masks.
Decision
Likelihood of Confusion (section 5(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act) - Despite acknowledging medium-high visual similarity and medium aural/conceptual similarity between the marks, the Hearing Officer found no likelihood of confusion. The relevant consumers were deemed commercially sophisticated professionals in the cosmetics supply chain unlikely to confuse the marks.
Reputation and Unfair Advantage (section 5(3) of the Trade Marks Act) - MZ Skin demonstrated some reputation through Harrods sales, celebrity endorsements (Keira Knightley, Gwyneth Paltrow and Selma Blair), industry awards, and press coverage. The Hearing Officer found this reputation to be “not more than modest” but noted that the applicant failed to deny the opponent’s trade mark has a reputation. The applicant also failed to deny the opponent’s claim that consumers would draw a link between the parties’ trade marks, which is a key element of opposition grounds based on reputation. During the proceedings, the Hearing Officer gave a further opportunity to the applicant to deny the claims, but no response was submitted. Under the applicable rules (Tribunal Practice Notice 4/2000), the unchallenged claims were treated as admitted. The impression, from the Hearing Officer’s findings is that simply denying the opponent’s claims could have been sufficient for the applicant to successfully defend the application.
The tribunal found MYSKIN would unfairly “seek to ride on the coat-tails of the senior mark in order to benefit from the power of attraction” on MZ SKIN's reputation and brand-building efforts. The opposition succeeded, the application was refused, and £1,500 costs were awarded to the opponent.
Key Takeaways
Procedural rigour is critical - The applicant's failure to address all the opponent’s pleadings proved decisive. Under the relevant Practice Notice, unchallenged points were treated as admitted, turning what could have been a defensible case into a procedural defeat. It is important to respond carefully to every pleaded allegation, as even strong substantive merits may be undermined by procedural lapses.
Legal advice and representation matter - The disparity between the parties was glaring, as the unrepresented applicant faced an opponent represented by specialist counsel with properly drafted pleadings. Self-represented applicants can often be unaware of the procedural rigour of UKIPO oppositions and risk losing cases on process rather than substance.
Modest reputation suffices – MZ Skin's evidence was not overwhelming, with no clear UK sales figures and much undated or non-UK evidence, yet the tribunal's finding of "modest" reputation was sufficient to sustain the reputation claim, because it went unchallenged. Brand owners do not need blockbuster sales or household-name recognition to claim rights under section 5(3), although the scope of protection of the trade mark will depend on the size of its reputation. When uncontested, even limited reputation may be enough to block later filings.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates how procedural lapses and lack of representation can be fatal in trade mark oppositions. While the marks were considered too different to cause confusion, the applicant's failure to properly engage with the reputation ground allowed MZ Skin to succeed on the unfair advantage claim. For practitioners and applicants alike, it underscores that oppositions are as much about process and procedure as substantive law.
If your trade mark application is opposed, and you would like advice and representation, please contact us, and the trade mark team at WP Thompson will be happy to help.