Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
16 February 1999
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
London Town Chocolate Company
Louis Marie Stanislas Le Duff
Section 5(2)(b)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition unsuccessful

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition unsuccessful

Points Of Interest

  • Phonetic similarity : If a party wishes to claim phonetic similarity then it should at least present evidence as to how its own mark is pronounced and ideally evidence as to pronunciation of both marks.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of a registration of the mark BRIDOR in Class 30 in respect of the same and similar goods to those of the applicants. They also filed details of use of the mark from 1993 onwards in respect of bakery products. The opponents claimed that the respective marks were phonetically similar and that the public could be confused as to the origin of the respective goods.

The opponents evidence was silent as regards the pronunciation of their mark and this evidence also established that in use, the mark BRIDOR was used with a device element. The opponents method of trade, as indicated by their evidence, was through professional food distribution companies and did not rely on word of mouth recommendations. Bearing these points in mind the Hearing Officer decided that the respective marks PRIX D’OR and BRIDOR were not confusingly similar. Opposition thus failed on this ground.

Full decision O/055/99 PDF document19Kb