Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
19 March 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
03, 05
Majid Yousefi Moridani
Colgate - Palmolive Company
Sections 3(6), 5(2)(b), 5(3), 5(4)(a) & 56


Section 3(6) - Opposition not pursued

Section 5(3) - Opposition not pursued

Section 56 - Opposition not pursued

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition succeeded in respect of COLEGIATE

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition not decided

Points Of Interest

  • None


Opposition based on opponent’s numerous registrations of the mark COLGATE (solus, and with added words and devices) in Classes 3 and 5. In dealing with the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) and applying the usual tests, the Hearing Officer confined himself to comparing the marks in suit and COLGATE (solus), which in his view provided the opponent with its best chance of success, the applicant having conceded identity or similarity of goods.

At the hearing, the opponent effectively conceded, the Hearing Officer concurring, that no risk of confusion arose in respect of the mark COLLEGIATE. He was also not persuaded that confusion would arise in respect of the mark COLLIGIATE, which in his view was likely to be seen as a misspelling of COLLEGIATE. However, he found a likelihood of confusion in respect of the mark COLEGIATE, whether stylised or not. Opposition therefore succeeded against the latter mark.

In the light of his findings under Section 5(2)(b), the Hearing Officer concluded briefly that the evidence would fail to support a more advantageous attack under Section 5(4)(a). The application was therefore allowed to proceed subject to deletion of the mark COLEGIATE.

Full decision O/134/01 PDF document36Kb