The UKIPO recently wrapped up a high-profile opposition between Transport for London (TfL) and GAP (ITM) Inc. At the heart of the dispute was TfL’s application to register MIND THE GAP (a phrased long-used on the London Underground to warn travellers to watch their footing near train doors) for a wide range of goods, inc. bags, eyewear, and accessories. GAP opposed based on likelihood of confusion, damage to reputation, passing off, and a claimed breach of a 2004 settlement agreement.
 
GAP’s arguments under sections 5(2), 5(3), and 5(4)(a) all fell flat. The UKIPO found that while GAP certainly has a strong reputation in the UK for clothing, that reputation didn’t stretch far enough to block TfL’s plans. The marks were found to be only weakly similar, conceptually distinct, and, importantly, not confusing. The decision stressed that MIND THE GAP has a strong, established meaning of its own.
 
Even where goods overlapped (like wallets and purses), the UKIPO was unconvinced that consumers would assume a commercial connection. The tribunal also rejected arguments around indirect confusion and any suggestion that TfL’s mark formed part of a “GAP family”.

Still, the opposition wasn’t a total loss. TfL’s application did partially fall under section 3(6) for bad faith. The Tribunal accepted that the 2004 agreement between the parties prohibited TfL from registering “MIND THE GAP” alone in relation to wallets and card holders.

The ruling is a reminder that even legacy agreements forged under an EU-wide system can have territorial bite in a post-Brexit UK, especially where specific product carve-outs are involved.
 
The latest March 2025 costs decision (O/0297/25) added a final twist. GAP sought off-scale costs, claiming that TfL had unreasonably forced it to prove a reputation for clothing. This was a fact GAP argued was plainly known to both parties. The Tribunal partly agreed, pointing out that TfL continued to deny this even after it was reminded to reconsider by the IPO. But GAP wasn’t without fault either. Its initial evidence bundle topped 800 pages and was described as “inflated” and poorly targeted. In the end, the Tribunal found neither party wholly blameless. The result? A draw: each side to bear its own costs.

The case exposes a few interesting gaps in UK trade mark enforcement:

– Having a reputed mark doesn’t automatically get you broader protection – especially when the conceptual differences are clear.
– There’s a limit to how far proximity of goods can stretch in creating links or confusion. While GAP argued that items like wallets, helmets, and shoulder belts were close enough to clothing to trigger confusion or association, the UKIPO disagreed. It found wallets moderately similar, but dismissed most other items as too functionally or conceptually distinct.
– Pre-Brexit settlements can still create post-Brexit surprises.
– In opposition proceedings before the UKIPO, going big on the evidence and denying the obvious can both backfire – even if you win on paper.