Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
10 April 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
03, 05, 08, 10
Scholl Limited
Lidl Stiftung & Co Kg


Section 5(4): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • The opponent appealed to the Appointed Person. In his decision dated 18 July 2006 (BL O/199/06) the Appointed Person allowed the appeal in respect of certain goods in Class 3 and restricted the applicant’s application accordingly.


The opponent is the owner of the mark CHIC and device registered in Class 3 in respect of a range of soaps, perfumery, cosmetics etc. The opponent filed evidence of use of its mark but the evidence was not well focused and while the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponent had some goodwill in its mark in relation to styling mousse and hair-spray but no significant reputation.

The Hearing Officer compared the respective goods and considered that the applicant’s goods in Classes 8 and 10 were far removed from the goods of the opponent; the goods in Class 5 were only vaguely similar but the goods in the applicant’s Class 3 application were similar to the goods of the opponent. The Hearing Officer then went on to compare the respective marks CHIC and device and CHIC FEET. While he accepted that there were visual and aural similarities because of the presence of the word CHIC he decided that conceptually they were different and that overall there was unlikely to be misrepresentation even in relation to the applicant’s Class 3 goods. Opposition, therefore, failed.

Full decision O/098/06 PDF document39Kb