Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
6 June 2000
Hearing Officer
Dr W J Trott
Cordorniu SA
GH Mumm et Cie Societe Vivicole de Champagne Successeur
(Consolidated) Sections 3(3)(b), 3(6), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful

Section 5(4)(a) - Opposition successful

Sections 3(3)(b) & 3(b) - Not pursued or considered

Points Of Interest

  • 1. See also under BL O/193/00 where Freixenet SA failed in their opposition to these marks


The Opponents owned a number of label registrations incorporating the words CORDON ROUGE, GRAND CORDON, CORDON ROSE, CORDON VERT etc and they also owned the word marks CORDON ROUGE and GRAND CORDON. Significant user was claimed as far back as 1885. The applicant claimed that the opponents marks were always used with a house mark and thus the marks as registered and used were less distinctive in the context of the overall mark. By reference to the Register of Trade Marks they sought to show that others used the word CORDON in relation to the same or similar goods.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer compared a CORDON ROUGE label (which included the house mark G H MUMM & Co in smaller lettering and a stripe device) with the applicants CORDON BLANCO label incorporating PARNAS in smaller lettering and a stripe device. CORDON ROUGE means red ribbon and CORDON BLANCO means white ribbon and the Hearing Officer concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion of the public. A similar finding also applied to the other marks applied for.

With regard to Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Officer - The Hearing Officer noted that the opponents had established a significant reputation in the family or series of CORDON plus the colour ROUGE, ROSE and VERT marks and went on to conclude that misrepresentation or confusion could occur if the applicants were to use their marks.

Full decision O/192/00 PDF document76Kb