Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> CHIC FEET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o09806 (10 April 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o09806.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o9806, [2006] UKIntelP o09806
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
CHIC FEET (Trade Mark: Opposition) [2006] UKIntelP o09806 (10 April 2006)
For the whole decision click here: o09806
Trade mark decision
- BL Number
- O/098/06
- Decision date
- 10 April 2006
- Hearing officer
- Mr G Salthouse
- Mark
- CHIC FEET
- Classes
- 03, 05, 08, 10
- Applicant
- Scholl Limited
- Opponent
- Lidl Stiftung & Co Kg
Result
Section 5(4): Opposition failed.
Points Of Interest
- The opponent appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 18 July 2006 (BL O/199/06) the Appointed Person allowed the appeal in respect of certain goods in Class 3 and restricted the applicant’s application accordingly.
Summary
The opponent is the owner of the mark CHIC and device registered in Class 3 in respect of a range of soaps, perfumery, cosmetics etc. The opponent filed evidence of use of its mark but the evidence was not well focused and while the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had some goodwill in its mark in relation to styling mousse and hair-spray but no significant reputation.
The Hearing Officer compared the respective goods and considered that the applicant’s goods in Classes 8 and 10 were far removed from the goods of the opponent; the goods in Class 5 were only vaguely similar but the goods in the applicant’s Class 3 application were similar to the goods of the opponent. The Hearing Officer then went on to compare the respective marks CHIC and device and CHIC FEET. While he accepted that there were visual and aural similarities because of the presence of the word CHIC he decided that conceptually they were different and that overall there was unlikely to be misrepresentation even in relation to the applicant’s Class 3 goods. Opposition, therefore, failed.