Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
21 October 1998
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
C &amp J Clark International Ltd
Christian Dior SA
Sections 3(1)(b) & (c), 5(2)(b), 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Sections 3(1)(b) & (c): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(2)(b): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(3): - Opposition failed.

Section 5(4)(a): - Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents claimed use of their CD mark for many years in relation to clothing and for some two years in relation to footwear. They also claimed a general reputation in the letters CD in relation to a range of goods such as perfumes, leather goods etc in addition to clothing and submitted that the letter X is non distinctive since it is sometimes used to denote size or excellence. The applicants claimed use from 1989 (the application was filed in 1994) and said there had been no confusion with the opponents mark.

Under Section 3(1)(b) and (c) the Hearing Officer noted that the evidence filed showed use of the applicants mark CDX with the phrase "Comfort, Design, Excellence" but concluded that the mark was a combination coined by the applicants and was not in any way a recognised abbreviation. Opposition failed on this ground.

Under Section 5(2)(b) it was common ground that identical goods were at issue but the Hearing Officer found the mark CDX and CD to be different visually and aurally and in the context of use in a letter mark, as here, he did not accept that the letter X was in any way non-distinctive. The Hearing Officer concluded that the public would be very unlikely to confuse the respective marks.

Under Section 5(3) the Hearing Officer accepted that the opponents mark CD had been used extensively but as it was simply a two letter mark it had a low level of distinctiveness. While it might have a reputation among that section of the public who purchase fashion goods the Hearing Officer found it difficult to guage that reputation in the absence of relevant evidence. The evidence filed had established that the opponents CD was associated and used with Christian Dior and other Dior house marks and the Hearing Officer believed that there would be no detriment to the opponents mark if the applicants CDX mark was registered.

In view of the decisions above the ground under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - was dealt with only briefly. In view of the differences in the respective marks, and methods of use, the Hearing Officer decided that there would be no misrepresentation or damage if the applicants mark was registered.

Full decision O/208/98 PDF document42Kb