Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
19 October 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
03, 05, 21
A2P International Limited
Lidl Stiftung & Co KG
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)


Section 5(2)(b): Opposition failed. Section 5(3): Opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • A preliminary decision was given on this case by the eventual Hearing Officer but as no weight was given to that decision the Hearing Officer declined to open it.


The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of the mark NEVADENT in Classes 3 and 21 in respect of dentifrices and toothbrushes. It also filed evidence of use of its mark in relation principally to toothbrushes but that user was modest in respect of the overall market for such goods and the Hearing Officer concluded that the opponent had not proved that its mark had an enhanced reputation through the use make of it and that it did not have a significant reputation as regards the public at large. This latter finding was fatal to its ground under Section 5(3).

The applicant also filed evidence about the size of the market in the UK for toothbrushes and tooth care products and submitted that in this context the user by the opponent was modest.

As regards the ground under Section 5(2)(b) the opponent indicated at the Hearing that it was withdrawing its objection in respect of such goods as deodorants. As regards the other goods at issue the Hearing officer carried out a careful comparison and concluded that identical and similar goods were at issue.

As regards the respective marks MEGADENT and NEVADENT the Hearing Officer noted that both marks had the suffix DENT but he did not consider this element to be particularly distinctive in the context of dental products. He also noted that when comparing MEGA and NEVA that MEGA has a well known meaning as large or great. Comparing the marks overall the Hearing Officer concluded that they were not confusingly similar and that the opposition failed on the Section 5(2)(b) ground.

Full decision O/300/06 PDF document112Kb