Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
6 November 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr M Foley
29, 30
Westbridge Foods Limited
Aldi GmbH & Co KG
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(4)(a)


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

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

Points Of Interest

  • Pleadings: Another example of the inportance of ensuring that pleadings are clear and well focussed.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership of registrations of their ALDI mark in a range of Classes including Classes 29, 30 and 35. The applicants accepted that the opponents had a reputation in their mark.

The applicants explained why they had adopted their ALDO’S mark and claimed that it was an Italian Christian name. They claimed that the mark had been put into use, after the date of filing, in relation to microwaveable snack food products and they were not aware of any confusion between the respective marks.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the applicants argued that the opponents in their pleadings, which were somewhat unclear, had restricted their opposition to identical goods only. The opponents disputed this and the Hearing Officer decided that as the opposition was under Section 5(2)(b) similar goods must also be considered. In any event it was a fact that in most instances identical goods were at issue. The Hearing Officer then compared the respective marks ALDI and ALDO’S and decided that while there were some similarities it was likely that they would be pronounced as AL-DEE and AL-DOH’S and concluded that they were not so similar as to lead to confusion. Opposition failed on this ground.

The opponents also failed on the Section 5(4)(a) ground in view of the Hearing Officer’s finding that the respective marks were not similar.

Full decision O/342/03 PDF document29Kb