Trade mark decision

BL Number

O/199/06

Decision date

18 July 2006

Hearing officer

Mr Richard Arnold QC

Mark

CHIC FEET

Classes

03, 05, 08, 10

Applicant

Scholl Limited

Opponent

Lidl Stiftung & Co KG

Opposition

Section 5(4)(a)

Result

Section 5(4)(a): Appeal allowed in respect of certain goods in Class 3.

Points Of Interest

• None

Summary

This was an appeal from the Hearing Officer’s decision dated 10 April 2006 (BL O/098/06) in which the opposition had been dismissed.

On appeal the opponent restricted its opposition under Section 5(4)(a) to those goods in Class 3 which the Hearing Officer had considered similar to the goods of the opponent and submitted that the Hearing Officer had erred in principle in reaching his conclusions with regard both to goodwill and misrepresentation.

The Appointed Person reviewed the evidence of use submitted by the opponent and decided that the Hearing Officer had erred in his consideration of the evidence. If the opponent had goodwill, as found by the Hearing Officer, it must also have a reputation in its mark CHIC and device in respect of a range of goods in Class 3 and such goods were similar to some of the applicant’s goods in Class 3. The Appointed Person went on to compare the respective marks and concluded that they were similar and that misrepresentation was likely if the applicant commented to use its mark. Thus the opponent would suffer damage to its goodwill. Appeal allowed.