This site uses cookies to help make it more useful and reliable. Our cookies page explains what they are, which ones we use, and how you can manage or remove them.

Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
11 March 2004
Hearing officer
Dr W J Trott
Omega Water Heating Limited
S.A. Spa Monopole
Sections 1(1); 3(1)(b); 3(1)(c); 3(1)(d); 3(3)(b); 3(4); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(1) - Opposition failed

Section 3(3) - Opposition failed

Section 3(4) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of goods in Class 11 : baths and shower baths not similar to water heating apparatus.


In the absence of a more detailed case by the opponent, establishing their objections under Section 1(1) and 3(1) in relation to the goods in question (essentially, water heating apparatus) the Hearing Officer dismissed the opposition under Sections 1(1) and 3(1).

Under Sections 3(3) and 3(4), the same absence of evidence in support of the allegations made, was fatal to the opponent’s case and these grounds too were quickly dismissed.

The case under Section 5(2)(b) was based on a number of registrations of the mark SPA in Class 32 and four other registrations (not owned by the opponent) of marks “incorporating the word SPA”, all in Class 11. The Hearing Officer lost no time in dismissing the case in relation to the opponent’s own marks; the goods were simply too far apart. The case therefore rested on the four Class 11 marks, which were SUPER SPA, SCANDI SPA, TURBO SPA and AROMA SPA. The first three of these were broadly related to the supply or treatment of water or water installations. The fourth was related to air conditioning. The Hearing Officer decided that none of these was similar to the water heating goods of the applicant and the Section 5(2)(b) case failed accordingly.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer concluded that the requisite reputation had not been demonstrated, and under Section 5(4)(a) that the goods in dispute were in such distinct fields of activity that no misrepresentation would occur, and hence no damage would result.

Full decision O/065/04 PDF document106Kb