Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
14 August 2007
Hearing Officer
Mrs A Corbett
29, 30, 31, 32
Ordo Templi Orientis
Starfire Publishing Limited
Sections 1(1), 3(1)(a),(b),(c) & (d), 3(6) & 5(4)(a)


Sections 1(1) & 3(1)(a): Opposition successful. Section 3(1)(b): Opposition successful. Sections 3(1)(c) & (d): Not considered. Section 3(6): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • As described.


The opponent owns two registrations in respect of identical goods as those of the applicant in Classes 29 and 30. The first mark a label mark consisting of the words PODRAVKA, VEGETA, a device of a Chef and a representation of vegetables. The second mark is also a label mark consisting of a device of a Chef and a representation of foodstuffs.

The opponent filed evidence of use of its marks but the evidence was poorly focused in that there was no explanation as to whether the turnover and promotional figures provided related to the UK market only and there was no breakdown in respect of the individual marks. In relation to this evidence the Hearing Officer was unable to conclude that the opponent’s marks had an enhanced reputation because of any use which might have been made of them.

The applicant disputed the opponent’s claim to a reputation in its marks and said that a search at a number of supermarkets had failed to find any of the opponent’s goods. The applicant also claimed that devices of Chefs are widely used in relation to items of foodstuffs.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and went on to compare the respective marks. As regards the opponent’s first mark which incorporates the words PODRAVKA and VEGETA the Hearing Officer decided that there was little similarity. As regards the second mark where the distinctive feature is the device of a chef, the Hearing Officer compared the respective devices carefully and also looked at individual get-up and presentation of the respective marks. He concluded that as devices of chefs are not particularly distinctive in relation to the goods at issue the surrounding elements of the respective marks would also have an impact. Overall the Hearing Officer concluded that the respective marks were not so similar that consumers would be deceived as to origin. Opposition thus failed under Section 5(2)(b).

The lack of properly focused and detailed evidence from the opponent also meant that it failed in its opposition under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a).

Full decision O/228/07 PDF document206Kb