Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
24 June 2008
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
Applicant for Invalidation
Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP
Registered Proprietor
Accrol Papers Limited
Section 47(2)(a) & (b)


Sections 47(2)(a) & 5(2)(b): Invalidation action failed. Section 47(2)(b) & 5(4)(a): Invalidation action failed.

Points Of Interest

  • None


The applicant for invalidation owns the registered mark THIRST POCKETS in Class 16 in respect of identical and similar goods as those of the registered proprietor. The applicant also filed evidence to claim first use from 1995 and details of extensive turnover from 2000 onwards rising to £18.2m by 2005. Annual advertising and promotion expenditure was over £1m by this date. The applicant’s evidence shows some use of the mark LOTUS THIRST POCKETS but it also filed research evidence to show that the mark THIRST POCKETS is widely recognised by the public.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that the mark THIRST POCKETS has descriptive connotations in relation to kitchen towels (the goods of both parties) and he bore this in mind when comparing the respective marks THIRST POCKETS and THIRSTY BUBBLES. While the Hearing Officer considered the two marks to be conceptually similar he decided that they differed visually and aurally because POCKETS and BUBBLES are different English words with their own well known meanings. Overall he considered the marks not to be similar and that invalidation failed on this ground.

As regards the ground under Section 5(4)(a) the Hearing Officer accepted that the applicant for invalidation had a reputation and goodwill in its mark. However, because the respective marks were not similar there would be no misrepresentation or damage and he decided that the applicant also failed on this ground.

Full decision O/174/08 PDF document53Kb