Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
12 April 2000
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Kemira Kemi Aktiebolag
Kemin Industries Inc
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • None


Opposition based mainly on opponent's registration in Class 1 of the mark KEMIN, but reliance also placed on registration of the same mark in other classes and on numerous other registrations said to derive from and/or relate to that mark. Hearing Officer found in relation to Section 5(2)(b) that, by the relevant date, the only mark for which the opponent had established a reputation was KEMIN (in particular with a device element), and he further found that although the evidence could have been more specific this mark covered goods either the same as or similar to those covered by the mark in suit. However, he found no serious likelihood of confusion between these marks, whether visual or oral, especially since any allusion to "chemical" in the common first element of the marks would reduce its impact and further highlight the other differences. The opponent's evidence reporting instances of confusion was found to lack contextual or specific explanation.

The distance between the respective marks and the opponent's failure to establish a reputation in any other (dissimilar) goods meant that opposition under Section 5(3) was also unsubstantiated.

Full decision O/132/00 PDF document39Kb