Ghost Mary not afraid of no ghost

In the trade mark opposition case between Singh’s Dynasty Ltd and Synergy Project Management LLC regarding the mark GHOST MARY for electronic cigarettes and vaping devices, the opposition failed because the IPO found no likelihood of confusion due to the distinctiveness of the marks, the opponent’s reputation evidence was insufficiently substantiated, and the arguments lacked targeted support, highlighting the importance of overall impression and strong evidence in trade mark oppositions.

On 12 January 2026, Singh’s Dynasty Ltd (the applicant) applied to register the trade mark GHOST MARY in relation to a range of goods covering electronic cigarettes and vaping devices.

Synergy Project Management LLC (the opponent) opposed the application based on their earlier UK registrations for GHOST covering electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.

The opponent relied on a number of grounds in the opposition proceedings set out in the Trade Marks Act 1994 including section 5(2)(b) – likelihood of confusion, section 5(3) – reputation and unfair advantage and 5(4) – passing off.

The decision

Spoiler Alert: The opposition failed. The decision in O/0087/26 provides several useful reminders that should be taken into account in trade mark opposition proceedings before the IPO:

1. Likelihood of confusion – Although, both marks contained GHOST and the goods were identical or highly similar, the IPO found that consumers would not ignore the additional word MARY. GHOST MARY created a different overall impression from the word GHOST alone. In addition, “Ghost” is a commonplace term and therefore, more difficult for a brand owner to claim exclusivity, direct or indirect confusion was found to be unlikely.

2. Evidence of reputation must be substantiated – The opponent’s evidence failed to prove enhanced distinctiveness or reputation. Much of the evidence was undated or unclear and showed limited consumer recognition. Reputation evidence must be clear, targeted and document-backed. It is not sufficient to simply assert that a brand is well-known. 

3. Arguments in the proceedings should be targeted – Successful opposition proceedings require targeted arguments and/or grounds and evidence to support the claims made. The link between the brands needs to be clearly explained and backed up with evidence.

Key takeaway

Trade mark oppositions are often won or lost on the overall impression of the trade marks and the strength of the supporting arguments and evidence.