Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
28 June 2000
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Lidl Stiftung & Co Kg
Sebapharma GmbH & Co
Sections 3(3), 3(4), 3(6), 5(2), 5(3) and Section 5(4)


Sections 3(3), 3(4) & 3(6) - Not pursued

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Section 5(3) & (4) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • These two marks had been found to be similar in proceedings in the German Patent Office. Decision under appeal at time of hearing. In any case the Hearing Officer decided that he must decide the matter in a UK context.


The only ground of opposition with any substance was under Section 5(2)(b) of the Act and the Hearing Officer concentrated on that ground in his decision.

The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of their marks SEBAMED and SEBAMED and device as registered in Classes 3 and 5. Continuity of use accepted by the Hearing Officer but he was unable to accept that there was any extensive reputation in the UK. The applicants claimed the respective marks were not similar and pointed to a number of MED marks on the Register which they considered to be more similar to the opponents marks.

The Hearing Officer noted that identical and or very similar goods were at issue so the dispute rested on a comparison of the respective marks NEVAMED and SEBAMED. The Hearing Officer accepted that the respective marks were the same length and contained similar elements but he concluded that they were so dissimilar visually, aurally and conceptually, that he could not foresee any likelihood of confusion.

Full decision O/221/00 PDF document35Kb