Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
17 July 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Pourelle Cosmetics GmbH
Go-Jo Industries Inc
Sections 5(1), 5(2)(a) & 5(2)(b)


Sections 5(1) & 5(2)(a): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition partially successful.

Points Of Interest

  • The applicants appealed to the Appointed Person but did not pursue the appeal. Costs awarded to the opponents. See Appointed Person decision dated 21 February 2002 (BL O/074/03).


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration in Class 5 for the mark PURELL in respect of "Hand sanitizing and disinfecting preparations, especially with antibacterial and antimicrobial properties; antibacterial and antimicrobial soaps". The applicants goods in Class 3 were "Soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions and dentifrices".

As the applied for mark was slightly stylised as compared to the opponents mark in block capitals the Hearing Officer decided that the marks at issue were not identical. The opponents thus failed in their ground under Sections 5(1) and 5(2)(a).

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the respective marks were very similar and that the registered mark PURELL was a strong and distinctive mark for the goods at issue. After comparing the respective goods the Hearing Officer concluded that "Soaps, essential oils, cosmetics and hair lotions" in the applicants specification were similar to the opponents’ goods. Opposition thus succeeded in respect of these goods.

If the applicants amended their application it would be allowed to proceed in respect of "Perfumery and dentifrices".

Full decision O/276/02 PDF document25Kb