Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
24 August 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr G Rose'Meyer
United Toiletries & Cosmetics Ltd
Le Petit Fils De L.U. Chopard & Cie S.A.
Sections 5(2)(b) & 3(6)


Section 3(6) - Opposition failed.

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

Points Of Interest

  • Use of a trade mark: I have already mentioned above the unusual way the applicants use their mark on packaging.


The opponents opposition was based on their ownership and use of the mark CASMIR in relation to "perfumes" from about 1991 onwards. The use was modest and not particularly well documented. The applicants also claimed use but the opponents disputed its merits. One unusual feature of at least one of the exhibits showed that the applicants used their mark on packaging which, when viewed from the front, only K KASHMIR was visible.

Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer noted that identical goods were at issue and, comparing the respective marks, decided that there was little likelihood of confusion. In view of the applicants unusual style of use, the Hearing Officer went on to compare K KASHMIR with the opponents CASHMIR mark but again came to the conclusion that they were sufficiently different for confusion not to occur.

The ground under Section 3(6) - Bad Faith - was based on the fact that the present applicants had opposed the opponents CASMIR mark, claiming that KASHMIR and CASMIR were confusingly similar. Also the applicants had earlier applied to register K KASHMIR and KK KASHMIR and the opponents claimed that the applicants were attempting to get as close as possible to their mark CASMIR. The Hearing Officer noted the fact of disputes between the two parties but considered that the opponents had not provided convincing arguments to justify a finding of bad faith. This view also applied to the unusual way the applicants used their mark on packaging

Full decision O/376/01 PDF document47Kb