Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
4 September 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr G Salthouse
18, 25
Danella Fashion Limited
Zapa Fashion Group GmbH
Sections 3(1); 3(3); 3(4); 3(6); 5(2)(b); 5(3) & 5(4)(a)


Section 3 - Opposition failed on all grounds.

Section 5: - Opposition failed on all grounds.

Points Of Interest

  • Comparison of marks DAPA v ZAPA


The opposition was based on the opponents’ mark ZAPA. The Hearing Officer dismissed the grounds under Sections 3(3) and 3(6) since only evidence of relative factors had been filed, and none bearing on bad faith. The Hearing Officer went on to find that DAPA was not so descriptive that the public could not be brought to recognise it as a trade mark, nor was it a term customary in the current language of the trade. The opposition under Sections 3(1) and 3(3) failed accordingly. Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer found that all factors considered, there was no realistic likelihood of confusion. This effectively decided the matter under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) also.

Full decision O/381/01 PDF document28Kb