Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
20 February 2002
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
John Charles Morton
Halewood International Limited
Sections 5(3); 5(4)(a)* *Other Sections were cited but these were the only grounds pursued at the hearing


Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. "The inhibition claimed would have to go to the core of the business of the opponent, not something peripheral - not an inhibition of an activity that will have little effect upon the opponent."


The opposition was based on the opponents’ registration of their mark LAMBRINI, registered in Class 33. Dealing with the matter first under 5(3) the Hearing Officer could not find from the evidence that the opponents had established a reputation. However, he went on to consider whether, had a reputation been established, the use of the later mark would take unfair advantage or be detrimental. He concluded, however, that any inhibition would have to go to the core of the opponent’s business, not something peripheral. He found the opponents unsuccessful in relation to their claims of fettering/inhibition. Neither could he find that the opponents had established that use of the trade mark in suit would take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier trade mark.

Under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer found that the opponents had failed to establish that there would be either deception or damage.

Full decision O/083/02 PDF document74Kb