Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
28 February 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
07, 08, 09, 11, 21
Pradeekpkumar Nandlal Dhoot
Kenwood Marks Limited
Sections 3(3)(b) & 3(4), & Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(3)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 3(4) - Opposition not pursued

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. None


Opposition based on opponent’s various registrations in Classes 7, 9, 11, 21 and 37 of the marks KENWOOD, KENMIX, and KENPART. In considering the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) and applying the usual tests, the Hearing Officer accepted that the respective marks covered largely identical goods and that the opponent's main mark KENWOOD had a UK reputation, though in the absence of evidence of market share he could not regard that reputation as above average. However, in comparing the marks, he found no realistic likelihood of confusion, even assuming that the mark in suit would come to be recognised by the average consumer simply as KENSTAR, due to the modest degree of stylisation and the lack of prominence of the words UNITED KINGDOM. Opposition on this ground therefore failed.

The Hearing Officer proceeded to dismiss briefly the Opposition under Section 5(4)(a) finding for similar reasons that no misrepresentation would occur, particular in the absence of evidence as to the use of the marks KENMIX and KENPART such as might allow the opponent to rely on those marks forming a significant "family" of marks with KENWOOD.

In the light of a clear statement by the applicant that the mark in suit would only be used on goods of UK origin, the Hearing Officer found that no deception would arise from inclusion of the words UNITED KINGDOM in that mark. Therefore, opposition under Section 3(3)(b) also failed.

Full decision O/096/01 PDF document30Kb