Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
7 December 2006
Hearing Officer
Mr D Landau
29, 30
Brand Associates Limited
Unilever NV & Unilever PLC
Sections 5(2)(b) & 5(3)


Section 5(2)(b); opposition successful for the most part. Section 5(3); opposition failed.

Points Of Interest

  • Costs in proceedings before the Registrar; relevance of evidence; need for hearing.


The opposition (which was not directed at all of the goods in the application) was based on the opponents’ mark AMORA.

The evidence of use, provided by the opponents, established a reputation in one, only, of the member states of the EU (not the UK); This was not sufficient for the purposes of Section 5(3) ruled the Hearing Officer. Even if it did, it could not establish that a reputation for its mark in France could damage its reputation in the UK, if it was unknown there.

Having compared the goods and the marks, and on an overall assessment, the Hearing Officer concluded that the opposition should succeed in respect of some of the goods specified in the application.

The (reduced) order of costs reflected the fact that although largely successful, much of the opponents’ evidence was not relevant. Also, a hearing in this case had not really been needed.

Full decision O/353/06 PDF document78Kb