Trade mark decision

BL Number
O/217/05
Decision date
1 August 2005
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
Mark
FOAMWORKS
Classes
03
Applicants
Colgate-Palmolive Company
Opponent
P Z Cussons (International) Limited
Opposition
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)

Result

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

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

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks FOAM BURST v FOAM WORKS where FOAM is non-distinctive in respect of the goods.
  • 2. Comparison of the marks FOAM BURST v FOAM WORKS where FOAM is descriptive in respect of the goods.

Summary

The opposition was based on the use and registrations of the mark FOAMBURST in Class 3.

The goods were clearly identical and the Hearing Officer proceeded at once to an assessment of the marks, FOAM BURST and FOAM WORKS. In the case of some of the goods the word FOAM was descriptive and not distinctive. From this the Hearing Officer decided that the marks were not similar in respect of the specified goods other than 'personal care products; toiletries and cosmetics'. Going on to compare the marks where FOAM was a distinctive element in respect of these latter goods the Hearing Officer also concluded that the marks were not similar. The absence of similarity effectively decided the matter.

Full decision O/217/05 PDF document64Kb