Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
3 May 2007
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
32, 33
Registered Proprietor
Beverage Brands (UK (Limited)
Applicants for a declaration of invalidity
PomWonderful LLC
Application for Invalidation
Sections 47(2)(a) (citing Section 5(2)(b)) and 47(2)(b) (citing Section 5(4)(a))


Application for invalidation, Section 47(2)(a) (citing Section 5(2)(b): Failed. Application for invalidation, Section 47(2)(b) (citing Section 5(4)(a): Failed.

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of the marks POM WONDERFUL v POMTINI


The application was based on registrations of the mark POM WONDERFUL and use of the name POMTINI in respect of a cocktail, devised and registered in the USA.

After dealing first with the question of the material date in these proceedings the Hearing Officer turned to the ground under Section 5(4)(a). Having examined the evidence, however, he concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated a goodwill in the sign POMTINI at the material date. The claim under Section 5(4)(a) failed, therefore.

After a detailed consideration of the matter under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer concluded that the differences between the respective marks were too great for there to be a likelihood of confusion. The application for invalidation therefore failed under both grounds on which it had been brought.

Full decision O/119/07 PDF document161Kb