Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
24 August 2000
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Kingston Estate Wines Pty Ltd
Champagne Moet & Chandon
Section 3(6) and Section 5(2)(b)


Section 3(6) - Opposition dismissed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition failed

Points Of Interest

  • 1. The opponents appealed this decision to the Appointed Person. The Hearing Officers decision was upheld up the Appointed Person. See decision dated 6 March 2001 under BL O/154/01


The opponents filed no evidence in support of their claim under Section 3(6) and the Hearing Officer dismissed that ground.

Identical goods were at issue so the only matter to be decided by the Hearing Officer was the conflict between the mark applied for and the opponents mark SARON. The Hearing Officer noted that the whole of the opponents mark was imbedded in the applicants mark SARANTOS and that both were likely to be seen as invented words. He accepted that there might be some conceptual association but did not think there was a likelihood of confusion since wines are generally purchased with some care and customers normally have to make a selection from a range of wines on display. In respect of the opponents use of their mark the Hearing Officer noted that it was modest in extent and he did not believe that it would have made any significant impact on such a large market. Opposition failed.

Full decision O/320/00 PDF document180Kb