Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
20 July 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
Fashoff UK Limited
Lancome Parfums Et Beaute & CI
Sections 3(4), 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3(4): - Opposition failed.

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

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

Points Of Interest

  • None


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of the marks O DE LANCOME and the letter O and device. They filed evidence to show that the letter Ô was highlighted in the mark O DE LANCOME in promotional material, packaging and on the goods. The applicants filed evidence to show EAU, O and OH are used by others in relation to goods in Class 3. Also that in proceedings in France, Spain and Italy involving the opponents of the marks at issue here, the applicants had been successful.

At the outset the Hearing Officer dismissed the ground of opposition based on Section 3(4) since this is an absolute ground and the opponents had only filed evidence in relation to relative grounds.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and that the dispute fell to be decided by comparing the respective marks. In this regard he had little difficulty in deciding that in view of the presence of the dominant, and very different distinctive features, LANCOME and MOSCHINE that the respective marks were not confusingly similar. Opposition therefore failed on the 5(2)(b) ground. As the opponent was in no better position under Section 5(4)(a) - Passing Off - it failed on that ground also.

Full decision O/314/01 PDF document31Kb